lol, how about Jews pay reparations to the rest of us, faggot?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896428)

How do blacka owe You for slave labor

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37910840)

A slow convert to the cause.

David Brooks

By David Brooks

Opinion Columnist

March 7, 2019

464

A detail from a display at the National Memorial for Peace and Justice in Montgomery, Ala.

Credit

Andrea Morales for The New York Times

Image

A detail from a display at the National Memorial for Peace and Justice in Montgomery, Ala.CreditCreditAndrea Morales for The New York Times

I’ve been traveling around the country for the past few years studying America’s divides — urban/rural, red/blue, rich/poor. There’s been a haunting sensation the whole time that is hard to define. It is that the racial divide doesn’t feel like the other divides. There is a dimension of depth to it that the other divides don’t have. It is more central to the American experience.

One way to capture it is to say that the other divides are born out of separation and inequality, but the racial divide is born out of sin. We don’t talk about sin much in the public square any more. But I don’t think one can grasp the full amplitude of racial injustice without invoking the darkest impulses of human nature.

So let’s look at a sentence that was uttered at a time when the concept of sin was more prominent in the culture. The sentence is from Abraham Lincoln’s second Inaugural Address. Lincoln had just declared that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. He was fondly hoping and fervently praying that the scourge of war would pass away. But then he added this thought:

“Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’”

Lincoln's second Inaugural Address is depicted on the north wall of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington.

Credit

George Tames/The New York Times

Image

Lincoln's second Inaugural Address is depicted on the north wall of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington.CreditGeorge Tames/The New York Times

There are a few thoughts packed into that sentence. First, there is a natural moral order to the universe. There is a way things are supposed to be — more important than economic wealth or even a person’s life.

Second, moral actions are connected to each other. If somebody tears at the moral order by drawing blood through the lash of slavery, then that wrong will have to be paid for by the blood of the sword. History has meaning. It’s not just random events.

Third, sin is anything that assaults the moral order. Slavery doesn’t merely cause pain and suffering to the slave. It is a corruption that infects the whole society. It is a collective debt that will have to be paid.

Fourth, sin travels down society through the centuries. Lincoln was saying that sometimes the costs of repairing sin have to borne generations after the sin was first committed.

From these thoughts we can appreciate the truth that while there have been many types of discrimination in our history, the African-American (and the Native American) experiences are unique and different. Theirs are not immigrant experiences but involve a moral injury that simply isn’t there for other groups.

Slavery and the continuing pattern of discrimination aren’t only an attempt to steal labor; they are an attempt to cover over a person’s soul, a whole people’s soul.

Editors’ Picks

There Are No Five Stages of Grief

Bigger, Saltier, Heavier: Fast Food Since 1986 in 3 Simple Charts

The Meaning of the Scene: Sean Spicer Repents

That injury shows up today as geographic segregation, the gigantic wealth gap, the lack of a financial safety net, but also the lack of the psychological and moral safety net that comes when society has a history of affirming: You belong. You are us. You are equal.

Nearly five years ago I read Ta-Nehisi Coates’s Atlantic article “The Case for Reparations,” with mild disagreement. All sorts of practical objections leapt to mind. What about the recent African immigrants? What about the poor whites who have nothing of what you would call privilege? Do we pay Oprah and LeBron?

But I have had so many experiences over the past year — sitting, for example, with an elderly black woman in South Carolina shaking in rage because the kids in her neighborhood face greater challenges than she did growing up in 1953 — that suggest we are at another moment of make-or-break racial reckoning.

Coates’s essay seems right now, especially this part: “And so we must imagine a new country. Reparations — by which I mean the full acceptance of our collective biography and its consequences — is the price we must pay to see ourselves squarely. … What I’m talking about is more than recompense for past injustices — more than a handout, a payoff, hush money, or a reluctant bribe. What I’m talking about is a national reckoning that would lead to spiritual renewal.”

We’re a nation coming apart at the seams, a nation in which each tribe has its own narrative and the narratives are generally resentment narratives. The African-American experience is somehow at the core of this fragmentation — the original sin that hardens the heart, separates Americans from one another and serves as model and fuel for other injustices.

The need now is to consolidate all the different narratives and make them reconciliation and possibility narratives, in which all feel known. That requires direct action, a concrete gesture of respect that makes possible the beginning of a new chapter in our common life. Reparations are a drastic policy and hard to execute, but the very act of talking about and designing them heals a wound and opens a new story.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896443)

blacks spent 250 years building this country and neither they not their ancestors were ever compensated

Even Jews received reparations for the holocaust. its bullshit.

Native Americans deserve reparations also.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896519)

you're right that we should take back everything we've given to jews.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896566)

lol

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896578)

I mean, slaves even worked on the white house

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896607)

America benefited greatly from having 200 years of free labor (and a continent full of free land that they stole from the Indians). Without these two things America wouldn't be the superpower that it is today.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896628)

America did not become a world power until the Industrial Revolution. Blacks werent needed for that when we had european and chinese immigrant labor.

Imagine how much stronger we’d be if we didnt have to fight a civil war and deal with all of the modern racial strife.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896645)

Blacks have contributed more to the vuilding of this country than any other immigrant group. Not only were they slaves but even after slavery they did things such as helping build the railroads.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896667)

European immigrants did more for America and its not even close.

Blacks had a huge influence on American music, so Ill gove you that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896680)

Blacks were here for like 300 years before they even came over. What a silly argument.

And blacks CREATED American music (ever originally American form of music -jazz, blues and rock&roll, from which all other forms of music descend, was created by blacks).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896684)

Why are you coming out of left field talking about shit like philosophy?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896700)

Just take the current federal minimum wage, give backpay, and adjust for inflation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896727)

Also for affirmative action

Also for the absurdly high murder rate

Etc

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896741)

XO thinks every black kid is going to Harvard through AA, when most black kids are struggling to graduate from high school. And of the blacks who go to college, most attend non-selective institutions.

But yeah a few thousand kids a year get to go to Harvard instead of Duke or whatever. The black race should be jumping for joy clearly.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896918)

"But yeah a few thousand kids a year get to go to Harvard instead of Duke or whatever."

More like every black gets to be shifted up one tier from Duke to Harvard, from big state to Duke, etc. And then get more bonuses in job hiring, federal contracting, etc. Even if it's such a small thing, it still counts toward "reparations." And if it's so small and inconsequential, why don't you support abolishing it so that smart blacks are taken more seriously due to not having AA suspicion any more and so that conservatives no longer have it as ammunition to rile up voters with?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896922)

No AA should not be eliminated. Its the least this country can do for blacks. It owes us way more.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896929)

And hey, uh, did you miss this poast or something???

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4214639&forum_id=2#37896917

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4214639&forum_id=2#37896917

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4214639&forum_id=2#37896917

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4214639&forum_id=2#37896917

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4214639&forum_id=2#37896917

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896932)

Calm the fuck down. Unlike you I have shit going on in my life aside from xo and I can't always respond to every thread immediately. As I SAID, a friend (do you need a dictionary definition?) texted me

That was a little more important than answering your dumb post. Sorry.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896947)

This makes no fucking sense. Are you 250 years old? I seem to remember something about you being only 34. Why the fuck would YOU be compensated for the free labor when YOU DIDN'T DO THE FREE LABOR?

Is the reasoning that "if we hadn't had slavery, my ancestors would have earned money for their labor and left that money to me as my inheritance, so give me that money now"? But if we hadn't had slavery, you'd be a citizen of an African country and would probably be far worse off than you are in the US, whether in terms of health, income, education or anything else. So all in all, that slavery happened is a good thing for YOU personally, so YOU should not be receiving "reparations."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896975)

Why aren't the children of slaves entitled to money for their parent's labor? Why does the debt just disappear because it wasnt properly addressed at the end of the civil war?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896989)

And the connection between you and slaves is so remote as to be irrelevant in modern life - should we also "propose just having Norway giving reparations to all descendants of British areas raided by Vikings"? Are we going to sift through all of history to figure out who owes what? The entire thing is a ridiculous abuse of the concept of inheritance and debt owed to one's parents. There's no justice or morality or logic in saying "well, it seems that Person A had ancestors 300 years ago who were owed X, so it is MORALLY NECESSARY that Person A be given X plus 300 years interest of money that he did nothing to personally earn!" Frankly, yes, I do think the debt should disappear after a certain amount of time -- it's debt that has no connection to your life in any discernible sense.

If your ancestor from 1563 was a billionaire in those days' equivalent of money, and he got robbed in 1567 and lost everything, it's not some moral travesty that you inherited zero dollars just like your neighbor whose ancestors were poor and left him zero dollars. This isn't a case of "grumble grumble, America OWES ME MONEY!!!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37897011)

Youre in favor of a 100% estate tax so that people who "did nothing to earn it" don't end up with money?

Or are you only opposed to black people receiving what their ancestors are due?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37897030)

Youre in favor of a 100% estate tax so that people who "did nothing to earn it" don't end up with money?"

I don't know if I'd go that far, but I think there are good arguments for that kind of position.

My point is more that, like I said, this is too far removed for it to make any kind of sense. Inheritance is treated the way it is because of the intimate connection between parents and their beloved children whom they worked so hard for, not for the purposes of arguing over historical conflicts that you cynically lay claim to. The parent-child connection is just not really analogous to the connection between you and some 19th-century slave who died before your grandparents were born. And yes, you can inherit from a long-lost uncle or whatever, but I think even that is an example of too strained a connection; that kind of thing should be 100% estate-taxed. Inheritance should only be for demonstrably close relatives, not some lottery windfall from someone you never met.

The "100% estate tax" position would be supported by just about everyone if, say, archaeologists unearthed some treasure trove of trillions' worth of gold with documents indicating that it happened to belong to the 6th-century ancestors of the modern-day Robertson family of Buttfuck, Indiana. The Robertsons would moan about it, sure, but who cares? Would they really be victims here whom we should have sympathy for? Everyone else would be just fine with the money going to the common government pot.

Like I said: "The connection between you and slaves is so remote as to be irrelevant in modern life - should we also "propose just having Norway giving reparations to all descendants of British areas raided by Vikings"? Are we going to sift through all of history to figure out who owes what? The entire thing is a ridiculous abuse of the concept of inheritance."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37897052)

Most of the North had abolished slavery by the time the US had become independent. Sounds like the Queen of England is the one you should be seeking reparations from.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37897055)

Lincoln didn't even intend to free the slaves at the beginning of the Civil war. Southern states that remained loyal to the union were told that they could keep their slaves. The Civil War was fought to keep the union intact, not to free slaves.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37897079)

Correct. If blacks basically just showed up and "created" American music, then why hadn't it been created in Africa centuries before America was even in a twinkle in anyone's eye? I wonder if it could be due to the fact that numerous tremendously critical aspects that were vital to the creation, evolution, and eventual spread of American music (including without limitation much of the harmonic vocabulary that defines it, much of the instrumentation that is used to perform it, many of the structural compositional forms that are employed, the entirety of the notational system that was used to record it for posterity, and the printing and recording technologies that were used to popularize it across the country and the globe) were unquestionably European and/or White American in origin and had nothing to do with African culture or black people?

And before you say something real retarded sir like "Well maybe R&B DID exist in 15th Century Africa!!!" let me stop you right there: We have plenty of "in-field" recordings of very early 20th Century African folk/popular music collected across Africa at the dawn of the recording age (i.e. before American music became a truly global phenomenon), and I have listened to many such recordings and 0% of it sounds like Ragtime, Blues, Jazz, R&B, Rock-n-Roll, etc etc. So the set of evidence that any of those distinctly American musical styles originated in Africa is exactly the same as the set of evidence that ancient Nigerians were KANGZ who landed on the moon.

To be clear, none of that is to deny the equally vital contributions that brilliant black American musicians--drawing on Africa's rich (albeit very different) history of musical development in its own right--did make to American music. But that's not what you were arguing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37899089)

The three basic American music forms - jazz, blues and rock and roll - are all black trqditions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37900665)

You want to respond to my post immediately above this?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37905177)

Lots of economists have argued how slavery hindered long run economic growth, because such cheap labor disincentivized technological innovation to drive down labor costs, which were so low you weren't incentivized to reduce them.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bf3e/77ea6f513c205f5eaf0dc790f9d8e0cd68a1.pdf

Turning back to the static comparisons in expression (19), a good question to ask

concerns the reason why the slave owners did not abolish slavery, even though they had a

chance to improve their profits in the short run by adopting a free labor market.19 The

answer to this question is twofold. Firstly, in the system of slavery, the surplus of slave

owners is not made up of only the operational profits but also includes the (imputed) rental

of the slaves already owned. Thus, the abolishment of slavery would impose a burden on

the slave owners amounting to r per slave per period.20 Note that for all free labor

economies under consideration p p f S < + ρ , implying that the profits alone would not

account for total gains of the slave owners from the maintenance of slavery. In other

words, the slave owners would be made worse off by a transition to a free labor economy

despite the inequality pS < pf

O < pf

M . The second reason is the risk of ending up with a

smaller labor force and hence, lower profits21 after the abolishment of slavery, due to the

migration of freed slaves to other parts of the country (Mandle, 1992; Graves, et.al., 1983).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37897902)

Author: Smokey Sweetheart ( was her love, she was my queen )

No serious person would argue that blacks contributed a great deal to the creation of this country"

agreed

good freudian slip. i respect you a little more now knowing that you're for sure deliberately trolling and don't actually believe your tongue-in-cheek lies

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896654)

Everyone knows blacks contributed a ton to this country. If they weren't extremely valuable to the country's economy the south wouldnt have waged a fucking war of desperation just to keep them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896676)

Author: Smokey Sweetheart( was her love, she was my queen )

No serious person would argue that blacks contributed a great deal to the creation of this country

Freudian slip ljl

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37897459)

I'm obviously right but these guy's hatred of blacks clouds their judgment (either that or they really just dont know much American history)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896752)

Hmm, it's almost like "Jim Crow" might not have been so bad...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896453)

Oh yeah, ((()))

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896469)

histrionic, lying fuck.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896548)

this taints everything and they want to use it to dismantle America which is "illegitimate" in their minds

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896494)

Reparations should come in the form of some endowment to help blacks with education, career building and business and home ownership. I'm not exactly sure how it would work but that's what I envision.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896564)

They're Americans, more American than all ethnic groups other than the oldest WASPs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896681)

Seems especially odd given that the blacks who suffered are all long dead and the blacks who reaped the benefit of getting to be Americans instead of third-worlders are the ones to whom we'd be paying the "reparations."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896721)

they have convinced dumb poor whites that black people are their enemies when really poor black people abd poor white people ahould be getting together and telling rich whites that they're the enemy. Republicans exploit racism to prevent the unification of the poor and working classes against the wealthy. No poor or working class white person should ever be voting Republican with their worship of big business and promises of tax cuts for the ultra rich yet they do because Republicans have convinced them that Democrats are nigger lovers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896599)

That's why occupy wall street was replaced by tranny rights and black lives matter bullshit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896695)

Poor whites should support generous social programs but conservatives have convinced them that Democrats want to take white pwkples money and give it to lazy blacks and Hispanics, so poor and working class whites vote against programs that are in their interests.

And the whole gun rights shit is really "You need a gun because black men are going to come rape your white wife and daughter. Even if you live in Idaho."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896719)

tell me again how open borders benefit white or black working class Americans

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896737)

who brought up open borders you illiterate buffoon?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896742)

I named a few specific areas in which the GOP manipulates poor white voters and open borders was never mentioned

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896749)

i'm sure blacks would vote American Nazi Party if their social program policies were generous enough

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896758)

The Southern Strategy "racist" theory is not supported by hard data. The Southern re-alignment from Dem to GOP took several decades. At the presidential election level, border southern states such as VA and FL started voting GOP in the 1950s when they went for Eisenhower. Before WWII, the only Southern Republicans were the descendants of union soldiers living in the Appalachian regions of TN and NC. After the war, lot of northern and midwestern republicans moved to the South to work in industries such as energy, finance, construction. In 1964, LBJ won the white Southern vote against Goldwater. It was not until Nixon's 1972 landslide that the South became fairly reliably GOP at the presidential level (even that was not rock solid, as Carter 1976 and Clinton won a lot of Southern states). However, at the state and local level, the South remained solid Dem until the aftermath of the Reagan revolution and the Gingrich revolution of 1994, when the GOP won both houses of Congress. It was not until the late 90's/early 00's that Republicans began winning Southern elections regularly across state and local level. Moreover, the parts of the South that went GOP first were the urban and affluent suburban areas while the racist rural areas remained Dem the longest.

Second, you assume that people's voting behavior should be determined primarily by how much money they can get from the government. Have you considered the "crazy" possibility that lot of working class whites don't like the Democrats' agenda on a whole host of issues that have nothing to do with their pocketbook? If you think their priorities are "dumb," then you are part of the problem.

Third, you are projecting here with respect to gun rights. Guns are a way to keep our loved ones safe in case something bad happens, and we need an instant way to defend ourselves. You unfortunately exemplify the typical black liberal who sees the entire world through the prism of race and cannot escape the vicious myopia of racial grievances.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896764)

Unlike most posters I sorta have a life and can't spend all day and night making sure I reply to each and every post in a 200 post thread but I tried to reply to the major posts that were directed at me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37900708)

Nixon was railing against "acid, amnesty, and abortion" - i.e. anti-war hippies, not blacks. Nixon's "law and order" stuff was obviously directed at anti-war protesters disrupting the Democratic convention in Chicago, not some coded bs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37897997)

http://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216147&mc=2&forum_id=2#37896791

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37896919)

But, a reparations deal where any US black who wanted to could take some reasonable cash amount, and in return, give up US Citizenship and leave the country permanently, that would be fair.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37897261)

This country will end in a tax revolt, just like it started.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37897511)

Yours is probably about 90 lol

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37900683)

Should Italian Americans get reparations from German Americans for the sacking of Rome by Germanic barbarians in 476 AD?

Should the native Americans get reparations for their “stolen land”?

What about the other tribes that every single Native American truce stole its land from? Should Pawtomack Indian descendants be paying reparations to Algonkians?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4216121&forum_id=2#37902258)