Bill O'Reilly drops an accidental truth bomb.

[HomerJS]

Wow! Time away from Fox News caused Bill O'Reilly to lose a few steps. In an attempt to demonize the left for wanting discussions on reparations, he accidentally stepped right in it.

 

[sandorski]

Wow.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So why not have a system where those who are disadvantaged have a genuine opportunity? Reparations as such? Exactly what does that look like and should disadvantaged Native Americans, whites, Hispanics, and Asians be denied those opportunities in the here and now? I think that ignoring economic status is absolutely wrong, that it needs to be the primary concern and naturally that would see blacks getting proportionally more benefit as they are on average worse off, but again not exclusively so. I don't support racial litmus tests to further divide people. Instead, help everyone who needs more than raising themselves by their own bootstraps.

 

[Commodus]

Someone want to brush him up on American history? There were people opposed to slavery at the time, but most of the founding fathers owned slaves, including Franklin, Jefferson and Washington.

 

[fskimospy]

They literally created a system where black people were worth 3/5ths of a white person.

 

[cytg111]

What is wrong with these people? This is where Slow gets his information, from a cess pool of "alternative" facts... Stay in school kids?

 

[trenchfoot]

The only reason Bill'o could say this is because he just so happens to be, like Hannity and Trump, an obsolete sexist angry old white guy whose attitude was chiseled in granite back in "the good 'ol days".

The shithead is behaving like his words still carries as much weight as it did before he got raked over the coals by his accusers, humiliated by his "being let go", thrown under Murdoch's bus for good measure and had his mutilated carcass scraped up and tossed into a ditch along side the road to the future.

"Radical belief" my ass.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

So they guy who had to pay tens of millions for exploiting women is arguing that the exploitation of women in our system doesn't exist?

OK then...

 

[dank69]

What a radical belief. The Earth is not flat: also radical.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Someone want to brush him up on American history? There were people opposed to slavery at the time, but most of the founding fathers owned slaves, including Franklin, Jefferson and Washington.

They did indeed. Looking at history and how things were, exactly how would eliminating slavery work at the founding of the US? Knowing how the times were, the contexts, the needs and wants of the individual colonies, what would be your solution that would pass muster? Of course Bill is ignorant but I believe people are overly simplistic when thinking about slavery.

The US wasn't founded to preserve slaves and their misery, nor was it to free them at that time. This is why there was the compromise on slaves being counted in part, because there could be no union and no rebellion against King George possible if either side had all they wanted.

The only solution would come much later with a war that did indeed pit brother against brother. Sometimes reality sucks and the context of the time of history needs to be taken into account when making claims. We ourselves may be judged far more harshly than those who supported slavery. Indeed I think that a distinct possibility.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Revisionist history fail lol

 

[HomerJS]

They did indeed. Looking at history and how things were, exactly how would eliminating slavery work at the founding of the US? Knowing how the times were, the contexts, the needs and wants of the individual colonies, what would be your solution that would pass muster? Of course Bill is ignorant but I believe people are overly simplistic when thinking about slavery.

The US wasn't founded to preserve slaves and their misery, nor was it to free them at that time. This is why there was the compromise on slaves being counted in part, because there could be no union and no rebellion against King George possible if either side had all they wanted.

The only solution would come much later with a war that did indeed pit brother against brother. Sometimes reality sucks and the context of the time of history needs to be taken into account when making claims. We ourselves may be judged far more harshly than those who supported slavery. Indeed I think that a distinct possibility.

Of course we enslaved black people. What choice did we have?

For a moment let's entertain your premise, what was the government's excuse for reneging on "40 acres and a mule"?

 

[fskimospy]

They did indeed. Looking at history and how things were, exactly how would eliminating slavery work at the founding of the US? Knowing how the times were, the contexts, the needs and wants of the individual colonies, what would be your solution that would pass muster? Of course Bill is ignorant but I believe people are overly simplistic when thinking about slavery.

The US wasn't founded to preserve slaves and their misery, nor was it to free them at that time. This is why there was the compromise on slaves being counted in part, because there could be no union and no rebellion against King George possible if either side had all they wanted.

The only solution would come much later with a war that did indeed pit brother against brother. Sometimes reality sucks and the context of the time of history needs to be taken into account when making claims. We ourselves may be judged far more harshly than those who supported slavery. Indeed I think that a distinct possibility.

People should be viewed in the context of their time when issuing moral judgments on their conduct. That doesn't change their conduct in a literal sense. If Bill O'Reilly said that the founders had made the country where whites ran everything and blacks and women did not because it was a compromise they needed to make I think that wouldn't be a particularly contentious opinion. To pretend that they didn't do that is horseshit though.

It's also pretty rich that he would say it was a radical belief to say they created a system where white guys ran everything when the literal outcome of their decision was that white guys ran everything. There was not a single elected federal official who was not a white man until 1870.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Of course we enslaved black people. What choice did we have?

For a moment let's entertain your premise, what was the government's excuse for reneging on "40 acres and a mule"?

Do you know what my premise is? Forty acres and a mule are irrelevant to this discussion, but you could answer the question of what could practically have been done when founding this nation, and I don't mean. "Well let's not have the rebellion thing" because that wouldn't work either. Do you know why slavery existed and why the North was against it and the South for it? As far as history goes I'm large part Cherokee, so "you don't know what some people had to deal with" need not apply.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

People should be viewed in the context of their time when issuing moral judgments on their conduct. That doesn't change their conduct in a literal sense. If Bill O'Reilly said that the founders had made the country where whites ran everything and blacks and women did not because it was a compromise they needed to make I think that wouldn't be a particularly contentious opinion. To pretend that they didn't do that is horseshit though.

It's also pretty rich that he would say it was a radical belief to say they created a system where white guys ran everything when the literal outcome of their decision was that white guys ran everything. There was not a single elected federal official who was not a white man until 1870.

Bill has no credibility on the subject at all. I was commenting on the history that he and others seem to forget and why things were as they were.

 

[UNCjigga]

I think people keep getting hung up about reparations at an individual level--i.e. they imagine some poor inner city black family getting a check for $1000s of dollars and celebrating.

That won't happen.

IF we ever get any reparations approved through Congress or state/local governments, it would probably take the form of grants to cities or organizations--i.e. funding for historically black colleges, infrastructure and real estate/investments for historic sundown towns, more/better public housing, better funding for public schools with >x% of students are African-American (i.e. schools that are traditionally underfunded.), more civic parks or other services serving African-American neighborhoods, etc.

 

[Commodus]

They did indeed. Looking at history and how things were, exactly how would eliminating slavery work at the founding of the US? Knowing how the times were, the contexts, the needs and wants of the individual colonies, what would be your solution that would pass muster? Of course Bill is ignorant but I believe people are overly simplistic when thinking about slavery.

The US wasn't founded to preserve slaves and their misery, nor was it to free them at that time. This is why there was the compromise on slaves being counted in part, because there could be no union and no rebellion against King George possible if either side had all they wanted.

The only solution would come much later with a war that did indeed pit brother against brother. Sometimes reality sucks and the context of the time of history needs to be taken into account when making claims. We ourselves may be judged far more harshly than those who supported slavery. Indeed I think that a distinct possibility.

Oh, yeah, it was a difficult situation, and I don't mean to paper over that. The main thrust is that pro-slavery politicians played a key role in the founding of the country, and they're partly why it took nearly a century after the Declaration of Independence to actually secure freedom (in spirit, not so much in practice) for slaves.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Oh, yeah, it was a difficult situation, and I don't mean to paper over that. The main thrust is that pro-slavery politicians played a key role in the founding of the country, and they're partly why it took nearly a century after the Declaration of Independence to actually secure freedom (in spirit, not so much in practice) for slaves.

And then another century for the civil Rights movement

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And then another century for the civil Rights movement

Another reason to create a means to give real economic equality to all. In some cases racism has to be addressed. In others, it's poverty and ignorance as with the Appalachians and the loss of opportunity due to coal. Layoffs, outsourcing- all these things need to be taken into account, but that's hard and politicians rather have slogans than do what is required.

 

[Indus]

More and more proof we need to destroy the country first to build a new and better one on the basis of equality.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Another reason to create a means to give real economic equality to all. In some cases racism has to be addressed. In others, it's poverty and ignorance as with the Appalachians and the loss of opportunity due to coal. Layoffs, outsourcing- all these things need to be taken into account, but that's hard and politicians rather have slogans than do what is required.

I agree.

 

[Indus]

nevermind.

 

[Perknose]

I don't support racial litmus tests

While I understand and am hugely sympathetic to much of your post, I do need to point out that reparations are NOT a "racial litmus test" per se.

It would be a "were your ancestors slaves" litmus test. It just so happen that this falls along stark racial lines. Gee, what were the odds of that?

 

[ImpulsE69]

So then what if your ancestors both owned slaves and were slaves? Do you divide by zero and implode spontaneously?

 

[HomerJS]

Do you know what my premise is? Forty acres and a mule are irrelevant to this discussion, but you could answer the question of what could practically have been done when founding this nation, and I don't mean. "Well let's not have the rebellion thing" because that wouldn't work either. Do you know why slavery existed and why the North was against it and the South for it? As far as history goes I'm large part Cherokee, so "you don't know what some people had to deal with" need not apply.

It is relevant because if what you said is true that because of the times slavery was necessary, what was the excuse for not making black people whole after Civil War ending and the EP? I don't think "the times" prevented that.