genuineoriginal
New member
So, when are you going to pay reparations to England for the crimes of your ancestors?
The UN demands the US pay Reparations
- Thread starter Traditio
- Start date
So, when are you going to pay reparations to England for the crimes of your ancestors?
genuineoriginal
New member
When I asked him when the descendants of the freed slaves were going to pay for the civil war, he said "Never".
I think that is an appropriate answer to the UN.
HisServant
New member
I lost two 3x great uncles in the civil war, one was wounded 3 times (Antietam, Gettysbury and Cold Harbor) He was in artillery battery I that fended off Pickets charge in the grove and there is a monument to his unit there today. He was an Irish immigrant that arrived here at the age of 6 and enlisted in Bakers California Regiment in Philadelphia (eventually the pennsylvania 71st regiment which was part of the Philadelphia Brigade). Before being transferred to the artillery unit.
The other side of my mothers family were Quakers, jailed in England for not paying their Church tax who was invited to come here by William Penn where he and his brother were given 400 acre farms across the road from one another in springfield, delaware county, PA. The quakers were the first group in the country to free their slaves and work for the freedom of all slaves. They were very much involved in the underground rail road.
My fathers forbears were brought to the Virginia Colony as indentured servants to serve out a sentence for stealing food in London. He was ripped from his wife and kids and put on the ship Dorchester which arrived in Virginia in 1734. He was eventually given a plot of land in the mountains of far western Virginia, near Tennessee which eventually was taken from the family to make part of the smokey mountain national park. They used that money to purchase some land near Whitetop VA where they logged it (sent the wood on the Virginia Creeper which is now a national trail) and used that money to move to Lancaster PA with a bunch of other displaced families.
The other side of my fathers family were Scots-Irish that immigrated to West Virginia and eventually worked the Pocahontas coal mines along side African Americans. My grandfather went to work in the mines as a timberman and met my grandmother there... they were married in a little town that no longer shows on the maps.
Her mother descended from the Spencer line that did own slaves, the first immigrant served in the Revolutionary War on the continental line and his son served in the war of 1812 as an officer. Two of his children fought for the south during the civil war and left their posts to go home to bring in the crops because they got word their parents were starving. Then returned to their unit, the older son was an officer and was charged with desertion while the younger was forgiven. The older brother faced the firing squad, but the men had made an agreement to shoot above his head, except one didnt and killed him. After the war his father told his wife he had to do something and disappeared for two weeks.. the fellow who shot his son was never heard from again. After this incident, the entire family sided with the north, the younger left and enlisted with the north and the parents became scalawags and were ostracized by their community so they had to leave their homes.
If there is any debt to the African American slaves in my family, that debt was paid for a long time ago with human lives and forced migrations.
The other side of my mothers family were Quakers, jailed in England for not paying their Church tax who was invited to come here by William Penn where he and his brother were given 400 acre farms across the road from one another in springfield, delaware county, PA. The quakers were the first group in the country to free their slaves and work for the freedom of all slaves. They were very much involved in the underground rail road.
My fathers forbears were brought to the Virginia Colony as indentured servants to serve out a sentence for stealing food in London. He was ripped from his wife and kids and put on the ship Dorchester which arrived in Virginia in 1734. He was eventually given a plot of land in the mountains of far western Virginia, near Tennessee which eventually was taken from the family to make part of the smokey mountain national park. They used that money to purchase some land near Whitetop VA where they logged it (sent the wood on the Virginia Creeper which is now a national trail) and used that money to move to Lancaster PA with a bunch of other displaced families.
The other side of my fathers family were Scots-Irish that immigrated to West Virginia and eventually worked the Pocahontas coal mines along side African Americans. My grandfather went to work in the mines as a timberman and met my grandmother there... they were married in a little town that no longer shows on the maps.
Her mother descended from the Spencer line that did own slaves, the first immigrant served in the Revolutionary War on the continental line and his son served in the war of 1812 as an officer. Two of his children fought for the south during the civil war and left their posts to go home to bring in the crops because they got word their parents were starving. Then returned to their unit, the older son was an officer and was charged with desertion while the younger was forgiven. The older brother faced the firing squad, but the men had made an agreement to shoot above his head, except one didnt and killed him. After the war his father told his wife he had to do something and disappeared for two weeks.. the fellow who shot his son was never heard from again. After this incident, the entire family sided with the north, the younger left and enlisted with the north and the parents became scalawags and were ostracized by their community so they had to leave their homes.
If there is any debt to the African American slaves in my family, that debt was paid for a long time ago with human lives and forced migrations.
An estate can be held liable for a debt.
The cost of the Civil War, a war fought between mostly white people, isn't a part of any reparations. It's not a gift to black people that we fought to change a flaw in our Union. The laws have a moral (and now a legal) obligation to protect everyone under them, and our slavery-enabling and segregationist laws did the opposite of that. It is the kind of cost that we should want to incur, a cost to build a nation of liberty and justice for all.
genuineoriginal
New member
Not when the "debt" never existed in the first place and was made up generations later, as is the case of this so-called "reparation".
The demand for reparations is clearly an attempt to obtain monetary or personal gain by fraud.
Because the Civil War was fought by mostly white people, any demands that white people pay reparations beyond the cost of the Civil War turns the cost of the Civil War into a debt that must be paid back by the black people you want to give those reparations to.
You are advocating the payment of an unjust "reparation" on top of all that has already been paid in blood and money fighting the Civil War.
You obviously don't care for morals, liberty, or justice.
So, why do you really want this "reparation"?
Last edited:
HisServant
New member
And like I said before, paying reparations (from whom would be an interesting discussion) would do absolutely nothing for the Black community and everything for the elite whites in this country. Such a windfall to the Blacks would result in it being squandered, just like 70% of lottery winners are in serious financial trouble within 5 years (this fact is color blind)
The 30% of the Black community that did use it to get ahead would be viewed at as not Black enough and to have sold out to the white man and would demand that that 30% give more back to the Black community and would end up being called Uncle Toms, etc.
So the end result is that corporations (mostly owned by whites) would see a windfall in spending as Blacks spend their money on temporary things.... the rich will get richer and the poor will end up poorer.
Nothing in this world should be given for free, everyone needs to earn and manage their way to prosperity.
REX said:
This is a minor point in the overall thread but this stood out to me. Why does your assimilation into American culture depend on what you name your child? :idunno:
What form do you want the reparations to take?
genuineoriginal
New member
The names given to people in a society are part of that society's culture and heritage.
Names that are outside of the normally expected ones stand out as a rejection of the society's culture and heritage, whether it is done out of deliberate rebellion or simply out of a desire to promote a different culture and heritage than that of the society.
What names are 'American'? Has that definition changed between the founding of our nation and now?
Even if they are attempting to promote a different culture, how is that relevant to hiring someone for a job? Particularly because people don't choose their own names?
Are people who eat ethnic food also rejecting American culture? What about clothing? I think you are too narrow in how you view acceptance or rejection of 'American culture and heritage'.
I don't know. At the moment, I'd say the most appropriate thing would be to study the possibility of reparations, which is what Rep Conyers's bill would do. It's likely that it would be prohibitive to break down reparations to individual responsibility. And that is ok with me, because part of the purpose of reparations is to compensate not just slavery, but the things that have happened since slavery, such as segregation and systematic discrimination. So, a black person with no personal family history of enslavement might still be qualified because of policies of deliberate exclusion that have been far more recent.
I guarantee that GO's claimed majoritarianism lasts only as long as he can construe himself as in the majority. If the majority of the culture want a more interventionist government than he likes, or a more pluralist society, he's suddenly going to have very different priorities.
See also: The practice of calling ones self "genuine original". So, conformity is mandatory for hated minorities to be accepted, but people in the racial majority are entitled to stand out as special snowflakes.
Last edited:
This is the other thing about it, and I know in advance that you're not going to like it, so I'll note that I'm mostly explaining for the sake of others who may be reading. It's true that under US law from the colonial era through the Civil War, slavery was legal. And it's also true that the US Constitution forbids any ex post facto law, i.e. a law that criminalizes something after the fact. Another way to say that is that you can't be held liable for an act that was legal when it was done.
And you're right as far as the Constitution goes.
But there's another concept of law that matters, that of the crime against humanity. Crimes against humanity are crimes so fundamental that it is impossible for a nation to legalize them. Such international norms are the only means we have of prosecuting things like the Holocaust, as the states involved had attempted to legalize these killings, and they are also the means by which we might hold repressive regimes like those of Iran, Cuba, and North Korea ultimately responsible for their crimes.
Slavery is widely recognized as a crime against humanity, which is to say that it never was properly legal. The United States, as an entity, is liable for it because it attempted to legalize slavery, and used government resources to enforce slavery. The fact that the laws of the nation permitted slavery is moot because it is illegal to enforce such laws.
Would you send the bill for World War II to the Jews, too?
The injustice was slavery. Stopping it was the responsibility of the People who had allowed it, not the people who fell victim to it.
Names that are clearly counter-cultural clearly indicate a refusal to assimilate. Why else would a mother name her child "Shaquan"?
It's not even a name like "Zayed," which is at least an historically acceptable Arabic name. "Shaquan"? All that says is: "To heck with white people."
Names like that are clearly a giant one finger salute to white culture.
Well, I say we give them the one finger salute right back.
"Jonathan" doesn't imply trouble. "Shaquan" does.
If a mother names her child "Shaquan" and he doesn't change his name later on? That says a ton about his probable upbringing, work ethic, cultural worldview, etc.
The employer is likely safer with Jonathan than with Shaquan.
To the UN. Find another city outside the United States to house your blasphemous organization.
Traditio refuses to consider that when a person names their own child, they might not actually be thinking of how a member of another race might feel about feel about it.
Fair point. It could be the case that the mother is just trash. Well, if I were an employer, I wouldn't want her child working for me. Sorry.
So now it's not even American culture and heritage but 'white culture'.
lain: Some of the naming is probably a reaction to the 'white culture' oppressing them. I don't think the American culture and heritage and ethic is determined by someone's name. :nono: Only within your biased mindset. How about you judge people as individuals and not based on stereotypes?
Your posts make me so sad sometimes. :sigh:
Or, perhaps, the parents are a member of a minority group that has its own proud history that is too often erased, and they want their child to be recognized as a member of that minority and celebrated for it.