Bill O'Reilly drops an accidental truth bomb.

[JEDIYoda]

1777 - State of Vermont, an independent Republic after the American Revolution, becomes first sovereign state to abolish slavery

1780s - Trans-Atlantic slave trade reaches peak

1787 - The Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade founded in Britain by Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson

1792 - Denmark bans import of slaves to its West Indies colonies, although the law only took effect from 1803.

 

[brycejones]

Slavery was an awful blight. So glad our country did away with it before the rest of the world. It's not exactly a point of shame that many of our founders decided the new nation would abolish slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism

No

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wow. Nice job shitting all over your own (alleged) ancestors' culture.

That you're intentionally trying to pretend like the reparations talk isn't specifically about trying to level the playing field, well again, speaks to the dishonesty with which you're actually approaching this. Ah, so equal except let's stop talking about black people already then? Odd... FYI, either you're once again being intentionally obtuse or your just plain ignorant.

No clue where you're getting this shit that reparations for them has never been or never is discussed.
Oh wow, look at this, 6 fucking days ago, the NYT had this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/us/reparations-slavery.html
But yes, its only just giving money to black people that's ever discussed and its not about trying to undo the harm and help push for real equality.

I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone that doesn't feel that both groups (and many many many others) have gotten a majorly raw end of the deal by the US government and deserve more. But hey, can we stop talking about black people already so we can talk about all these other people fucked by the US instead? Or really can we just stop talking about it all together because what everyone should be concerned about is equality! And I refuse to see how working to undo systemic harms (that continue to do harm) will accomplish that and then try and portray it as though those people aren't interested in actual equality.

I hope you can some day start to realize what a useful tool you're being for the people that associate with those that did the harm to your ancestors (and many others), where anytime someone wants to talk about the harms done to blacks in America, you'll be sure to say "I'm a native ancestor and you don't see me whining, I didn't let it define me so I made something of myself" while you then also admit you don't even care about your ancestors' culture (finally some bit of honesty though!). You know what they say, assimilation just makes our asses imitate each other!

But hey, I guess if we make sure that blacks and natives and anyone else doesn't get to give a shit, then maybe it'll put a stop to white supremacists marching in the streets under the guise of "celebrating their heritage" or something? We can't forget about them poor persecuted white people! Equality! Won't someone think of those poor whites that lost their lives in the Bowling Green Massacre?

Straw has just gone extinct.

 

[pmv]

As I've said, many of my ancestors were Cherokee and were victims of successful genocides, and weren't even as well regarded as slaves were. Things fall along racial lines for sure, but I suppose hunting scalps for profit might not be seen as something worth reparations when it comes to Native Americans who still embrace that culture.

But I'd like to see everyone elevated while others sell reparations for slavery. Maybe people should want to a level playing field and taking the steps required to get there. Obviously as already stated the needs for the "average black" if there is such a thing would be different because of historical racism. Now back to reparations for genocide. I didn't see that mentioned in enlightened circles, or again isn't that important enough to mention by candidates and others?

I suppose there's an issue in there - that if you are going to mistreat a group, you'll do better if you obliterate them entirely. Straight out of Machiavelli:

"Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge."

But I don't get why you want to set different mistreated groups in competition with each other like this. What is gained by that? Different historical problems can be addressed differently, no?

Also, weren't the Cherokee one of the tribes that adopted the European form of slavery, and kept slaves themselves?

I remember hearing somewhere that, in a complicated recursive kind of injustice, upon abolition, the Indian tribes were, unlike the Southern whites, obliged to give land to their former slaves.

Hmmm, checking Wikipedia, Indian involvement in slavery seems a hell of a complicated topic.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I suppose there's an issue in there - that if you are going to mistreat a group, you'll do better if you obliterate them entirely. Straight out of Machiavelli:

"Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge."

But I don't get why you want to set different mistreated groups in competition with each other like this. What is gained by that? Different historical problems can be addressed differently, no?

Also, weren't the Cherokee one of the tribes that adopted the European form of slavery, and kept slaves themselves?

I remember hearing somewhere that, in a complicated recursive kind of injustice, upon abolition, the Indian tribes were, unlike the Southern whites, obliged to give land to their former slaves.

Hmmm, checking Wikipedia, Indian involvement in slavery seems a hell of a complicated topic.

By European standards, Native Americans could be primitive and savage but looking at Europe they weren't much better but Americans inherited the idea of land ownership and expansionism. The Monroe Doctrine might well be named Manifest Genocide.

 

[pmv]

By European standards, Native Americans could be primitive and savage but looking at Europe they weren't much better but Americans inherited the idea of land ownership and expansionism. The Monroe Doctrine might well be named Manifest Genocide.

I agree that US history in that regard is horrifying in its racist brutality. The US built an empire on one continent (somewhat similar to the Chinese, perhaps).

And there seems to be a lack of awareness of just how murderous it was, closely analogous to the lack of acknowledgment here (even after all this time) of the brutal reality of the British Empire.

The point about the participation of some Indian tribes in the enslavement of African-Americans is just that these things are always hideously complicated.

But I still don't see that the harm done to American Indians necessarily says anything about the rightness or wrongness of reparations to the descendents of enslaved Africans.

 

[purbeast0]

Is there a video or something in the OP that is being blocked by my network?

 

[hal2kilo]

wut

Was also wondering what the F he waa talking about.

 

[HomerJS]

Is there a video or something in the OP that is being blocked by my network?

Closer to source

https://twitter.com/x/status/1143231157703757824

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Since the Trumpie Filth brought us here with a slap in the face for electing a black man, I say -- expropriate everything including the shirts on their backs and send them to Perdition. Action-- Reaction -- Re-action . . . . Make America Great Again -- Deport all the Trumpie Filth or just sell them the Kool-Aid.