"Youre not Black Enough -say croud"

Kim Tae-Woo

Black journalists jeer peer
By Steve Miller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A conservative activist says that he was booed, jeered and called "the white man's boy" by a crowd of nearly 300 black reporters and media figures for speaking against reparations at last week's annual convention of the National Association of Black Journalists.
Jesse Lee Peterson, founder of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, presented his opinions during a Friday debate with Michael Eric Dyson, author and professor at the University of Pennsylvania, on "The Case For/Against Reparations for African Americans."
"During the question-and-answer period, Dyson and others in the audience called me ignorant and accused me of being 'the white man's boy,'" Mr. Peterson said. "They attacked my education and the way I speak and told me that I was a pawn for the white man."
He said the reaction from the journalists calls into question their professionalism.
"I always thought that the responsibility of a journalist is to be objective and look at both sides. It seems that these journalists have a personal agenda to get out," he said in an interview yesterday.
The attack on Mr. Peterson continued Tuesday in Mr. Dyson's weekly column in the Chicago Sun-Times.
"If you've ever wondered what a self-hating black man who despises black culture and worships at the altar of whiteness looks like, take a gander at the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson," Mr. Dyson wrote. "In Peterson's mind, black rates of teen pregnancy, the breakdown of the black family and black people's addiction to civil rights advocacy are the unerring symptom of our moral failures."
About Friday's debate, Mr. Dyson wrote, "Mr. Peterson refused to engage in an intellectual or principled defense of his opposition to reparations. Instead, he relied on the heavy-handed emotional antipathy toward black people."
Mr. Peterson was invited by Condace Pressley, president of the black journalists group, to debate Mr. Dyson and argue against reparations.
Miss Pressley and Mr. Dyson did not return calls, and attempts to reach several members of the National Association of Black Journalists' board of directors were unsuccessful.
The 90-minute debate was moderated by Ed Gordon, a former NBC television reporter and host of his own news show on Black Entertainment Television.
The event was part of the five-day conference that included several other speakers, although Mr. Peterson was one of the few conservatives.
Mr. Dyson has written books on race, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and hip-hop. He is best known for his outspoken liberal views, stating last fall that the September 11 attacks were "predictable to a degree due to America's past imperialistic practices."
Mr. Peterson is the conservative author of "From Rage to Responsibility" and a former liberal. He is the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Rev. Jesse Jackson, filed by Judicial Watch, that says he was assaulted during a public meeting of Toyota executives and Mr. Jackson in December.
"I've had both of them on my show," said Mark Thompson, a on-air personality at WOL-AM in Baltimore. "I let Jesse talk, which is the best way to deal with him. I would see no reason to have a confrontation with Jesse — he defeats himself."
Mr. Peterson countered, "All I can say about reparations to these people is that these professionals, you would think, would be happy with their progress and want to move forward. Instead, they were angry at me and saying I was defending white folks. But my principles apply to all of mankind."
This seems to be a general trend against conservative blacks who don't go along with the overwhelmingly liberal black 'leadership'. Deriding them as 'the white mans tool' and 'Uncle Toms'. When appointed by conservatives they are derided as 'tokens'.

mike65

Kim,

I wish you'd give us a few thoughtful opinons of your own rather than just posting points of potential interest.

For what its worth, that sort of thing does'nt surprise me. Its all politics, I'm sure in NI there have been meetings where someone
was deemed not republican/loyalist enough to be deemed worth hearing.

BTW am I the only one who reckons getting compo for ones
great-grandparents being slaves is maddness, if this approach were taken against all ppls who have been oppressed some countries/ethnic groups could be in court from now till kingdom come.

Mike.

Gordon

Umm OK.
I can't see any opinions to point this thread to Personal Issues as opposed to Humanities so I will send it over there to be mauled by the crowd of hungry sharks that they are

Venom

Its no surprise really.The black comunity is never gonna take statements like Jesse Lee Peterson favorably.It would mean that the majority of blacks in America have to take full responcabilty for there own lives and actions rather than blame the evil white man for what was done in the past.

BTW am I the only one who reckons getting compo for ones great-grandparents being slaves is maddness, if this approach were taken against all ppls who have been oppressed some countries/ethnic groups could be in court from now till kingdom come

Damm right.What was done is done and they just need to move on.Im sure if we all trace back our ancestors far enough we will see that at some point they were oppressed by the English,but that dont mean we have to hold a grudge these days and look for a hand out for what was done decades ago.

Shinji

It's just yank compensation policy being brought to yet another extreme - nobody is prepared to take responsibility for their own actions, it all has to be someone elses fault. Lame.

bonkey

Originally posted by mike65
[BBTW am I the only one who reckons getting compo for ones great-grandparents being slaves is maddness, if this approach were taken against all ppls who have been oppressed some countries/ethnic groups could be in court from now till kingdom come.[/B]

Definitely.

Unfortunately, after the successful gathering of "compensation" by the Jews as a result of WW2, it seems to be a growing trend.

The question is whether there should be a statute of limitations on such affairs. After how long does injustice simply become "history" which we live with?

jc

The Gopher

These people are ungreatful.Sure their ancestors suffered,but they are living alot better than they would be living in Africa.Most American blacks are decended from peoples from the west african coast-primarily Nigeria,as well as Sierra Leone,Senegal,Ghana,Ivory coast etc.Where would you rather live?In a bad neigbourhood in south central LA,with drug dealing and drive by shootings?Or in Sierra Leone,praying that you wont have your limbs cut off and get your children kidnaped so they can join an army which pays them by getting them hooked on drugs and upping the dosage as a reward for battlefield performance?The likes of Harlem and Compton have their problems but they are paradises compared to some of the violent hells in west africa.The Irish were opressed for 800 years-do we sue the Brits claiming that heroin addiction in north dublin and so forth is thhe fault of our opression?

mike65

Reading some of the posts regarding NI and perfidious Albion
I suspect there are some on the boards who would reckon taking
the UK government to the European Court of Human Rights
for past atrocities would be a go-er, then ditto the French for the Normans and Denmarks' for the Vikings.

Mike.

The Corinthian

Breaking News: Italian State sued by French Government for massacres perpetrated by the Roman invasion of Gaul in 54 B.C.

It’s always been easy to find moral scapegoats for one’s own indolence, especially where one may also profit by it. Personally, I think they’re entitled to compensation as long as they renounce their American citizenship.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by bonkey


Definitely.

Unfortunately, after the successful gathering of "compensation" by the Jews as a result of WW2, it seems to be a growing trend.

Why do you feel the need to enclose the word COMPENSATION within quotation marks.......with special relevance to Jews??? By doing so, you are insinuating that Jews are the originators of a race-specific compensation culture.
It needs to be pointed out that the court actions you refer to were compensation claims for loss of home/land/possessions/artefacts etc. No monetary award whatsoever would ever absolve the deliberate murder of seven million human beings.
Your anti-Israel stance is obvious from your regular postings, but I am surprised and disappointed by this newly displayed anti-semitism.

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8

It needs to be pointed out that the court actions you refer to were compensation claims for loss of home/land/possessions/artefacts etc.

Now hang on a minute. I totally agree with most statements above accept your bandwagen/blind attack of anything that remotly appears Anti-Semitic..

What about Lose of Freedom????

To me that is more important than anything.....
Even my life

Venom

To me that is more important than anything.....

Nothing is more important than your life.

Your anti-Israel stance is obvious from your regular postings, but I am surprised and disappointed by this newly displayed anti-semitism.

How is it that anyone who dosent agree 100% with a Jewish person is being anti-semitic?How is it that the Jew's are the only religious people/race that have a special word for racism against themselves?

No monetary award whatsoever would ever absolve the deliberate murder of seven million human beings

What was done by the Nazi's to the Jewish people during WWII was horrific but how can they still continue to blame the modern day German people for the actions of the past when most German's werent even born then? The Japanese did horrabe thing to American and other allied soldiers but no one keeps dragging it up every other week.War is a terriable thing but at some point you just need to move on.

bonkey

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
Why do you feel the need to enclose the word COMPENSATION within quotation marks.......with special relevance to Jews???

Because of the manner in which the claims have been persued.

By doing so, you are insinuating that Jews are the originators of a race-specific compensation culture.

Well, lets see. They had a genuine claim, they pursued it through some questionable means, and made a lot of money out of it. A key argument for paying compensation for the dead (as well as the survivors) was that there should be no statute of limitations on what happened to them.

We are now seeing many other ethnic and racial groups taking legal action seeking compensation for whatever atrocities happened to them. They use the same basic argument - no statue of limitations.

I'm not insinuating anything. I'm flat-out stating it for a fact. These people are - rightly or wrongly - riding the coat-tails of the Jewish success in gathering recompense.

It needs to be pointed out that the court actions you refer to were compensation claims for loss of home/land/possessions/artefacts etc.

Actually, no they werent.

The two most significant cases were taken against the Swiss nation and the Swiss banks. The case against the nation was because of allegations that Switzerland refused Jews entrance during the war....which it did. Of course, no mention of the fact that Switzerland allowed more Jews per capita to have refuge than any other nation on the planet. The second claim was for the so-called Jewish gold. Here, the vast majority of monies being sought are for monies which were lodged to Swiss banks and never claimed. Not money taken from the Jews - money that individuals gave to banks for safe keeping and which was never claimed - most likely as a result of the deaths of the account holders.

Furthermore, in chasing this compensation, the Jewish prosecutors have consistently refused to accept the figure estimated by the banks themselves. When the banks brought in an external auditor to recalculate, not only did the Jews insist that the banks pay this huge cost, they still refused to accept the final figure because it was lower than what they believed it to be.

With no proof, no evidence, no witnesses, the Jewish prosecution still managed to force the swiss banks into paying a figure far above the largest figure of liability that the banks had calculated based on the actual financial figures.

Compensation or extortion? I guess that depends on who you decide to believe : the people who spend millions having a formal investigation to determine liability, or the people who's main argument boils down to "we dont accept that figure, we want a lot more".

Regardless of whether you consider this extortionate, what has happened as a result is that a people (the Jews) have laid a claim on the possessions of the individuals of that people who died during the war. This is not truly compensation, because it is not the individuals who lost out who are being remunerated. More on this further on.

Your anti-Israel stance is obvious from your regular postings, but I am surprised and disappointed by this newly displayed anti-semitism.

Of course you would be disappointed. I mean, the Israeli's are a perfect nation, and indeed the Jews themselves as a people are equally beyond reproach. How dare I imply that they may be anything less than pure perfection in their actions.

Shame on me.

Maybe you could enlighten me and answer a few questions then, because I'm clearly misinformed :

For a start, who authorised the Jews to prosecute for "full and final" compensation from groups, when the Jews were not the only ethnic group or race who were targetted for mass extinction by the Germans? What about the Romany? What about the handicapped? They were treated in the same way. Not only have these peoples been mostly forgotten, but the Jews persued their claims for compensation in such a way as to guarantee that no other group would be able to make similar claims.

Secondly, the monies recieved have not, for the large part, been distributed to those who actually lost it. Most of the money has been left in the prosecuting organisations coffers, or used by the state of Israel for various rebuilding programs. In fact, as I understand it, descendants of the actual victims are entitled to no compensation, as they are not Holocaust survivors themselves. On the other hand, any Jew who was alive during WW2, reagardless of where they were, is considered a Holocaust survivor.

Let me get this straight. One person's family could have been put through hell in concentration camps, lost all their worldly possessions (which coul dhave been sizeable), and so on and so forth. They have died, leaving a son who was born after the war. From what I understand, he is entitled to nothing. On the other hand, a Jew who lived comfortably as a young child in the US throughout the whole of the war is classed as a holocaust survivor and is notionally entitled to compensation.

If this is the case, then yes, I feel perfectly correct in putting the word compensation inside quotation marks. There is a difference between compensation and downright exploitation in the name of compensation.

If this is not the case, then please direct me at sources which clearly show otherwise so that I can educate myself. If, on the other hand, you havent actually researched it to that level of detail, then I would like an apology for claiming I'm anti-Semitic. I'm not. I am anti-corruption. I dont care about the skin colour, religious belief or anything similar about the case. What I care about is how a situation has been treated.

The Jews were mistreated. This does not give them the right to try and rip off as many people as possible in return. I disagree morally with much of what I have learned about how the Jews have sought compensation. While I think there is a lot of compensation owed, I disagree with the manner it has been sought, collected, and - perhaps most importantly - how it has been distributed.

I think you will find that very very little of this compensation has been given to the people it has been claimed for. I would argue, in fact, that the vast majority of people who are actually "owed" compensation from the treatment they received in WW2 have not received their dues, and that others have benefited from the monies collected in these peoples names.

If you see that as anti-Semitic, then thats your problem. Thats like saying I'm anti-arab because I condemned Al Qaeda.

The Jews are more than the nation of Israel. They are more than the individuals seeking compensation for the atrocities of WW2. The term anti-semitic means anti-Jew. Not anti-Israeli, not anti-compensation-seeking-Jews.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
Your anti-Israel stance is obvious from your regular postings, but I am surprised and disappointed by this newly displayed anti-semitism.

Well that wins the Idiotic Post of the Month award.

In equating anti-Israel and anti-Semitism, you are in fact making the most anti-Semitic remark of all. Much of the origin of anti-Semitism came about through the perception that Jews were not ultimately of the same nationality as the country they resided in – that ultimately their loyalties were divided and could not be trusted.

So should we bar Jews from office, given they would (according to your inference) have Israel's interests closer to heart than Irelands? So congratulations on reinforcing that age old paranoia.

Oh, and as an aside; anti-Semitism would probably include (by correct rather than popular definition) other Semitic peoples, such as Arabs. I can't see them making the same observation as you.

Borzoi

Nice post bonkey. Well though out, cogent, researched, and not inflamatory. Altogether a rare thing on the net. Should go for a post of the month with that.

bonkey

Originally posted by Borzoi
Nice post bonkey. Well though out, cogent, researched, and not inflamatory. Altogether a rare thing on the net. Should go for a post of the month with that.

Except that its off-topic somewhat, for which I apologise:)

If anyone wants to discuss my post further, please start a new thread about it, but lets try and get back to the original topic here...

jc

BEAT

Originally posted by The Corinthian
It’s always been easy to find moral scapegoats for one’s own indolence, especially where one may also profit by it. Personally, I think they’re entitled to compensation as long as they renounce their American citizenship.

This is something I have been trying to say for the longest time.
I totally agree, I say cut them a check (they get welfare form the gov't already) put them on a plane and send them back to where thier ancestors came from without option to re-enter the USA...then maybe they will see that with certain privalge comes sacrafice. Just about every culture that emigrated to the USA had to undergoe some amount of persecution.
Life would be much more pleasant if people didnt live in the past and instead made fresh new lives for themselves and thier families...You make your own misery I say and the whole population of black americans who live in poverty do it to themselves living off of the misery passed down from generation to generation, you'd think they would start thinking and living for themselves. If the gov't would just stop helping them to be "sponges" off society and help them to want to help themselves maybe America would be a better place. I think we all know that will never happen, the amount of Laziness and Ignorance reaches far more across the land than does ambition and independence, and thinking for themselves....
A nation of people who live by standards set by what they see on television, read in magazines and hear on the radio.
ahh well, I could continue on my rant but I think I've said my share for today.

bonkey

Originally posted by BEAT

I totally agree, I say cut them a check (they get welfare form the gov't already) put them on a plane and send them back to where thier ancestors came from without option to re-enter the USA...then maybe they will see that with certain privalge comes sacrafice. Just about every culture that emigrated to the USA had to undergoe some amount of persecution.

Sure - cut them a check. As long as its a cheque large enough to compensate them for whats done to them.

Ignore the timeframe to make the example simpler.

Lets say you had a family who owned a farm, some herds, had some assets. They had social standing.
You remove them from this, and then systematically discriminate against them in their new location.

Some time later, when all their connections to their original home have been destroyed, you offer compensation. What price on generations of discrimination? What price the fact that they no longer have a society to return to - their lands, herds, social standing, etc.

I'm sure plenty of African Americans would take the cheque and denounce citizenship if it actually paid them for the level of injustice which has been perpetuated on their people over the past few decades. They could take the money and retire to Monte Carlo probably.

However, that amount will never be offered.

I take the point that most of Africa is hardly a picnic, but this is a secondary issue. We cant look at the mess western civilisation has made of the African continent, and say "well, you're better off being persecuted in the US, cause the persecution you'd have suffered at home from the mess we made is even worse" as if it were some kind of panacea.

Now - before anyone goes off the deep end, please note that I dont support the idea of compensation in this case, but I'm just pointing out the impracticality of the proposed solution. If i thought it could work, it would be a great idea.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
What price the fact that they no longer have a society to return to - their lands, herds, social standing, etc.

Bottom line: Are they better off in the US or like their counterpart in Africa who's ancestors were not sold into slavery?

So who's to blame anyhow? The White Man may have created a market, but the commerce was there long before and long after the White Man had gone off the idea of slavery. The entire African continent was a mess long before Europe started messing with it.

Should we compensate the descendants of the Australian convicts for the inheritance denied them? Should I be compensated for the lands my family lost due to past wars? Should white Zimbabwean farmers (or their descendants) be compensated adequately for the loss of their land, or those who’s ancestors owned the land before them? Or those who’s ancestors owned the land before them that took the land from in the first place?

The moral argument becomes more tenuous as we continue to find a seemingly endless spiral of recriminations.

So returning to my initial point, which is the bottom line that defines damages and compensation in such cases. What is the opportunity cost? What if their ancestors had never suffered slavery? They would be living in a series of banana republics with basket case economies and have the life expectancies of mayflies. This is the primary issue, because this is how compensation is calculated by law.

So they have a hard time. And their ancestors had a really ****ty time. Tough. Sh1t happens. You don’t see me looking for a handout from the British Government because my father ended up being born in one of their concentration camps? Should the US deduct from any compensation for the greater standard of living they’ve enjoying over the years?

Just don’t confuse justice with either guilt or opportunism.

BEAT

I couldnt agree with Corinthian more once again, always putting things in perspective.

I totally see both sides of this issue, believe me. I sympathise with the history of the blacks as much as I do with the Irish emigrants in america, and the jews, so on etc...
The difference is the "african americans" are still crying about what happened so much that they benefit from it in everyday life.
Others have made thier point and then made a life, and just because they dont go around crying about it doesnt mean its forgotten. I sure as hell havnt forgotten that my people were once the native people in America, the native americans. Now what are they? a minority who's entire continent was taken away from them , I neednt go over the history,I am sure it is known. I certainly dont go around with a chip on my shoulder about it and cry out for handouts everywhere instead of thinking for myself and having a life of my own. And I am sorry but it must be said that the Native americans had it worse than the blacks. They were merley moved, suffered, and now have a better way of life more advantages etc... than they would had they not been shipped over. We lost everything and got nothing.
Ok enough of my rant. I have made my point I hope, err..what was my point...oh, ofcourse no price can be put on your life, history , present or future. But we cant live in the past can we...unless they move on they will never get ahead.

pro_gnostic_8

The second sentence of your very interesting post.....

Originally posted by bonkey




Well, lets see. They had a genuine claim, they pursued it through some questionable means, and made a lot of money out of it
jc

Regrettably, this is more of it! You agree that Jews have a genuine compensation claim but then you proceed to qualify this truism with remarks about dodgy methods of judicial procedure and "making a lot of money out of it" They either do, or don't, have a genuine claim -- no rider needed.

#2:- That Swiss banks were "forced into paying a figure larger than the largest figure of liability those banks had calculated for" is of no consequence. You know well that banks and other institutions always enter legal negotiations at a ridiculously low financial opening play. However, here it might be pertinent to mention REAL figures.......
QUOTE:
"Jewish groups and lawyers for Holocaust victims reached a $1.25 billion settlement with Swiss banks over Holocaust-era claims.
It also follows a pledge by the Italian insurance firm Assicurazioni Generali to pay $100 million to compensate Holocaust victims whose insurance policies were never paid off"
www.jewishsf.com/bk980904/uswant.htm

The main body of your post arguing the ultimate destination of the compensation monies (to Israel) is an over-simplification of a very complex arrangement agreed unilaterally by the individual claimants. True, further discussion of this issue would perhaps be better served in a topic-specific thread.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by The Corinthian

Well that wins the Idiotic Post of the Month award.

In equating anti-Israel and anti-Semitism, you are in fact making the most anti-Semitic remark of all.

Are you serious?? Please, please tell me where I parallel anti-semitism with anti-Israel sentiment. I well understand and know the difference between these two perspectives!

To add insult to injury you quote a statement of mine to underline your mis-conception. If you cannot comprehend a straightforward sentence, then, perhaps you should refrain from portraying me as an "idiotic poster".

The Corinthian

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
To add insult to injury you quote a statement of mine to underline your mis-conception.

The sentence in question drew a parallel between Israel and the Jews. That connection was not made by bonkey, and was made by no one other than you. You created the relationship between anti-Israeli and anti-Semitism in that sentence. If you do understand and know the difference between these two perspectives, why did you feel the need to mention them in the same breath as if the two were somehow inexorably linked? Your statement, in short, was not an argument, but an innuendo.

Did you merely wish to infer that bonkey’s past anti-Israeli sentiments were related to anti-Semitism? Even that creates a dangerous ideological parallel between the two.

To call such an inference ‘idiotic’ would be a kindness. The alternative would be a calculated sensationalist cheap shot, grounded only in innuendo, with the purpose of stifling debate with liberal orthodoxy. Idiotic, on the other hand, grants that you were at least not attempting such an intellectual fraud.

Clintons Cat

What seems to be most apparent from casual observance of Afro American politics is that still seems to be rooted in the parlance of the 1960s civil rights movement.To then call a black leader an "uncle Tom" or "the white mans tool" might have been an acceptable way for Malcom X to shock Black Middle America from its complacency whilst the Southern States were still persecuting and legislating against black people and turning a blind eye to lynchings.
But Its relevence to modern black politics is about as anocranistic as white politicians calling their political opponents "beatnicks".The same kind of people who epitomise the current "voice of Black America"see Colin Powell not as a role model but as a sell out or an embarassment or the wrong shade of black.

Fight the Power Or Get A Job
You deceide
man

bonkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
What if their ancestors had never suffered slavery? They would be living in a series of banana republics with basket case economies and have the life expectancies of mayflies. This is the primary issue, because this is how compensation is calculated by law.

Except that those "banana republics" you refer to are also a direct result of the same people who gave rise to slavery - the whites who subjugated an entire continent.

Of course, the logical conclusion to this is that the entire African continent has had its culture, lifestyles, etc. indelibly changed by the white mans subjugation.

In other words, every African has as valid a claim for compensation as the Afro-Americans do.

Of course, compensation will never be forthcoming, because of the basic implications of cost. Just look at the Native Americans. When the US finally admitted that yes, they had been mistreated, even to the point of original agreements not being kept, what did they get? "heartfelt" apologies.

Offer the Afro-Americans the same.

jc

p.s. I am not answering pro-gnostic-8's message. I already said I wasnt going to discuss it again in this thread.

BEAT

Originally posted by bonkey


the whites who subjugated an entire continent.

--absolutley ridiculous comment. The definition of subjugate (since you do not know or normally use words out of context) is to enslave, or conquer. The Whites did not conquer africa nor did they enslave all of africa. The whites purchased slaves from Africa, who btw were being sold by Blacks for the most part...do you not know your history?

Of course, the logical conclusion to this is that the entire African continent has had its culture, lifestyles, etc. indelibly changed by the white mans subjugation.

--OMG, where do you get this rubbish from? please back it up with references, your opinion or what you think you know does not count. Now to make this comment about the Native Americans would be true...they took over the continenet of which they inhabited , stripped them of thier land, culture and way of life.
Africa still lives the way of life they have lived for hundreds of years....are you confused perhaps?

In other words, every African has as valid a claim for compensation as the Afro-Americans do.

--absolute rubbish.

Of course, compensation will never be forthcoming, because of the basic implications of cost. Just look at the Native Americans. When the US finally admitted that yes, they had been mistreated, even to the point of original agreements not being kept, what did they get? "heartfelt" apologies.
Offer the Afro-Americans the same.

--ok here we go...these "african Americans" already benefit from the system as a direct cause of the treatment the received over the years. Why do you think they get away with crying "racism" everywhere and nothing is said? why do you think they get "special" college grants or are on welfare thier entire lives teaching thier children its the way to live, off the gov't for all the years they "enslaved" us. For the simple fact that they are "black" Ughh, I know this because its what I was raised around and taught about...I live in the US and see first hand what happens, not only in my city mind you, it's all over the States.
I am not a racist, hell, I have family members that are black from inter racial marriages, But I know and even they know that the majority of blacks are just crying a lot of crap and need to move on .
A good questoin would be why you think its justified to keep defending the points you keep trying to make.
we all know the facts and the "struggle" it's really just getting so old that no one wants to hear it anymore. I await the day when they really are treated like everyone else, you know, when they wine we tell them to shut up because they are not the only ones who have troubles. In other words, Grow up, get a mind of your own and move on. Cant we all just get along

bonkey

Originally posted by BEAT
the whites who subjugated an entire continent.
--absolutley ridiculous comment. The definition of subjugate (since you do not know or normally use words out of context) is to enslave, or conquer. The Whites did not conquer africa nor did they enslave all of africa. The whites purchased slaves from Africa, who btw were being sold by Blacks for the most part...do you not know your history?
[/I]

Yes, I know my history. Lets see - The Dutch, the English, the French, The Portuguese, the Spanish, and several other nations all owned nations in Africa as part of their empires.

The whole concept of there even being nations with borders in Africa, and those nations having governments is a structure which was imposed on the region by the Europeans - or do you think that the Africans just uncannily invented an identical system to our own all by themselves???

Of course, the logical conclusion to this is that the entire African continent has had its culture, lifestyles, etc. indelibly changed by the white mans subjugation.

--OMG, where do you get this rubbish from? please back it up with references, your opinion or what you think you know does not count.

Certainly. Borders, systems of government, apartheid, imperialism, catholicism. Need I continue? These were forced on the African continent.

Now if you still want to believe that this is rubbish, maybe youd like to present references explaining how all of these things came about without the subjugation of the Africans.

I'm really interested in your explanation for the white land-owners in Zimbabwe and the Apartheid regime in South Africa by the way.

why do you think they get "special" college grants or are on welfare thier entire lives teaching thier children its the way to live, off the gov't for all the years they "enslaved" us.

Perhaps because the US government have realised what a piss-poor job it has done of actually living up to its ideals of freedom, and that this problem is largely of its own creation. Perhaps because it, unlike you, seems to be aware of the phenomenon called social conditioning. And just maybe it believes that the statistics show massive racial inequality which cannot be explained by anything racial...leading to the inescapable conclusion that it must at least partially be socially based.

A good questoin would be why you think its justified to keep defending the points you keep trying to make.

Because while I dont agree that these people are entitled to remuneration, they are entitled to an admission that the white man is significantly responsible for their current situation.

we all know the facts

This coming after you've been telling me I havent a clue, and that I dont know my history? Then again - it strikes me that I could say the same about you.

Which means that we dont "all know the facts". We each have our own set of information, and each of us chooses the light we wish to see that information in.

and the "struggle" it's really just getting so old that no one wants to hear it anymore. I await the day when they really are treated like everyone else

If you dont want to hear about the "struggle", then its likely that you will never see the day when they are treated like everyone else.

On one hand you're insisting theres no problem except one of their own making. On the other hand, you're waiting for the day when they are treated like everyone else.

If they're not treated like everyone else, how can there not be a problem?

jc

p.s. See if you can answer this one with all the insults next time. Maybe if everyone was less insulting, we'd have fewer problems in the world....

Sand

The lack of compensation is not a matter of cost imo. Anybody who has never owned slaves does not owe a bloody cent to anyone who has never been a slave. To argue otherwise is sheer madness - but then lawyers are involved. In this particular case did the US own slaves? I cant say with certainty the actual US state did not own slaves - but Ive never heard of it and I would consider it highly unlikely. However US citizens did own slaves. So their slaves should find their previous owners and sue them. But theyre all dead so no case - unless sins of the father is a legal precedent we wish to ressurect.

BEAT

ok Bonkey,
Since I know you are big on the apology bit...i am sorry that you feel my comments were insulting.

I can back my information up the same way you can...any US history text book will do.

The simple fact here is that you feel they need to be compensated for these past events and that is something that will never happen.

The fact that they remain separated with thier special groups and raising thier children to still believe the whites are the enemy's just keeps them at the place they are now.

I agree with what SAND said above...you cant be compensated for something that happened to your ancestors that long ago. They have the same oppurtunities as everyone else in the country and have no reason to continue living the way they do and then complaining about it. They have every chance to better themselves, more so than whites because of thier "minority status" yet they sit back on welfare and continue to blame the white's and whoever else.

It'd silly to think that anyone in this day and age is going to apologize for anything that happened , SAND gave the perfect example as to why.

I am not arguing with YOU bonkey, I am merely stating the current state of affairs. Have you any first hand knowledge of the situatoin as it stands? I think if you were a product of the society that these same people were raised in you would see things differently.

There are many intelligent and educated blacks that would agree that its just pure ignorance and laziness that make up the groups of people that hold on to these past events as an excuse for being poverty stricken or the like.

I have grown weary of this subject as it will have no end I fear. So I am not going to reply any further.

Peace.;)

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
Except that those "banana republics" you refer to are also a direct result of the same people who gave rise to slavery - the whites who subjugated an entire continent.

Shall we ignore millennia of history and assume that Africa is a creation of the last two centuries?

No it's not. Get over the middle class guilt trip. They fscked it up all on their own.

[edit]As I already pointed out, slavery was present in Africa long before and long after the White man's relatively brief economic interest with it. So why don't you now tell me when and how slavery was abolished in the Kingdom of Ethiopia then?[/edit]

DapperGent

Originally posted by The Corinthian

Shall we ignore millennia of history and assume that Africa is a creation of the last two centuries?

No it's not. Get over the middle class guilt trip. They fscked it up all on their own.

In a lot of ways Africa is a creation of the last two centuries. The map of Africa nations is based solely on administrative regions created by the competing colonial powers during their great land grab. Most European countries grew organically over a long period of time which lends them great stability. People are tied together by common language, genetics, culture, religion and history. Africa in a lot of ways is what it was, a huge patchwork of tribes which in many cases share nothing but a mutual antipathy with their nearest tribal neighbours.

African countries do not exist in the same sense that ours do. There is no inherent sense of Zambianess or Ivory Coastness. Most of Zimbabwe's population come from two tribes the Mashona and the Ndebele. They have their own languages, traditions and culture which hold quite strong in many ways despite modernisation. Tribe is more important than country. In many places in Africa political parties and governments are split along tribal lines. This is the root cause of much of the basket case governace we have seen. Another problem for Africa is that (excepting Botswana) there is no tradition of democracy, we came to democracy organically and over a huge swath of time. This and the multi-tribal nature of many countries has led to the pseudo-democratic dictatorships such as Robert Mugabe's in Zimbabwe and a little before that Kenneth Kaunda's in Zambia. Unfortunately these seem to be the only type of goverment that is stable in sub-saharan Africa. Unfortunately for Zimbabwe it has a dictator that absolutely will not relinquish power under any circumstances.

Africa's social and economic instability can in someways therefore be blamed upon it's former colonial masters. If Africa had not been exploited in the way it was any nations that existed there now would have a proper reason to exist and would therefore be more stable. Whether Africa and Africans should be compensated for the political mess that is their continent I don't know. I certainly think that there should be some comeback for the way they were used as proxy states during the Cold War. Dicatators like Idi Amin (a genocidal cannibal) were supported, funded and armed by the US. In many ways Africa is being compensated with the enourmous amounts of aid that pour into it from the west. Ironically corruption of this aid is widespread due primarily to the type of government post-colonial states produce.

Clintons Cat

just one point i would wish to pick up upon.

Claims for Reparitions for Slavery predate the Swiss Banking Payout For Holocaust Survivors,the Nation Of Islam were calling for a Black State In The USA and the Gold in Fort Knox since at least the 60's.Whilst Marcus Garvey was preposing Afro Americans be financially renumerated for returning to Africa since the 1930's.So it would be erroneous to make the claim that this is a recent development born of the compensation culture.

Thank you for your attention.

Sand

Perhaps, its just as dumb though- the individuals in question ( slave owners) were acting within their legal rights at the time, and once the law was changed they freed their slaves. End of story. Thats even assuming former slaves were alive to make their claims.

Continuing this precendent, the descendants of those who died in the American Civil War have a right to sue blacks as a collective group for their ancestors who died to free them ( african americans).

Much as I have a right to sue the british government because Irish people were deported to Australia and the Caribean - disregarding the fact the present british government or population had **** all to do with it.

corkey

:mad: The BLACKS OF EUROPE @ ONE STAGE WHE THE IRISH WERE, NOW WHERE CLAIMING TO BE A BIT BETTER THAN EVERYONE IN EUROPE BITEING BACK THE EARLY 80S ARE COMING BACK WILL EVERYONE THEN WORK @ ANYTHING JUST TO PAY THE BILLS REALY WILL WE AFTER BEEN ON THE CELTIC TIGER ?

sceptre

Originally posted by corkey
:mad: The BLACKS OF EUROPE @ ONE STAGE WHE THE IRISH WERE, NOW WHERE CLAIMING TO BE A BIT BETTER THAN EVERYONE IN EUROPE BITEING BACK THE EARLY 80S ARE COMING BACK WILL EVERYONE THEN WORK @ ANYTHING JUST TO PAY THE BILLS REALY WILL WE AFTER BEEN ON THE CELTIC TIGER ?

What?

You're shouting but, odds are, no-one can understand what you're trying to say.

DapperGent

Originally posted by sceptre


What?

You're shouting but, odds are, no-one can understand what you're trying to say.

From what little I understand it appears to be irrelevant.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
just one point i would wish to pick up upon.

Claims for Reparitions for Slavery predate the Swiss Banking Payout For Holocaust Survivors,the Nation Of Islam were calling for a Black State In The USA and the Gold in Fort Knox since at least the 60's.Whilst Marcus Garvey was preposing Afro Americans be financially renumerated for returning to Africa since the 1930's.So it would be erroneous to make the claim that this is a recent development born of the compensation culture.

Thank you for your attention.

And thank you, Cat, for verifying that Jews were NOT the first racial grouping to consider pursuing a compensation claim.

bonkey

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8

And thank you, Cat, for verifying that Jews were NOT the first racial grouping to consider pursuing a compensation claim.

I've read back through the thread - no-one ever claimed they were the first to consider pursuing a compensation claim.

I'm interested in Sand's approach - only the individuals are responsible, and they are only responsible to those who were actually slaves, and even then, they shouldnt be responsible cause they werent actually breaking their own laws?

Does this mean that only the Jews who were in concentration camps and who didnt die are entitled to compensation? And the only people who should be looked to for compensation them are the ones who broke laws to persecute them....and seeing as the laws of the nation in question weren't broken.....


I'm guessing not. But I'm sure its different cause one happened only 2 generations ago, and one happened centuries ago. Which brings me back to the original question - what, if any, should be the statute of limitations on such actions?

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by DapperGent
In a lot of ways Africa is a creation of the last two centuries.

However, Africa is not simply a creation of the last two centuries. The inevitable interaction with Europe, and later the Cold War, has had it’s consequences for the continent, but to argue that modern Africa is simply a creation of this interaction would be a gross simplification. Many other nations have been subjected to European colonialism and later used and abused as pawns in the Cold War, but they have consistently faired better than sub-Saharan Africa.

In fairness, while the last two centuries have shaped Africa more radically than the preceding two millennia, the same could be said for the entire planet. The practical reality is that the seed for many of Africa’s problems were sown long before the battle of Waterloo.

African countries do not exist in the same sense that ours do.

This is not entirely correct; Ethiopia is one of the most ancient nations on Earth, yet continues to suffer the same level of instability that is suffered by the rest of sub-Saharan Africa. It is also interesting to note that slavery was still a legal and accepted practice there up until the 1930’s.

bonkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Ethiopia is one of the most ancient nations on Earth, yet continues to suffer the same level of instability that is suffered by the rest of sub-Saharan Africa.

The question is whether or not it suffered this instability before the white man came in, or if it is during or after that influence that the instability set in.

I would be surprised if one of the oldest nations on earth has always suffered instabilty. I'm not saying it didnt, but I doubt it. However, even were this the case, it would be reasonable to say that this is highly unusual, and the exception rather than the rule. Unless, of course, you maintain that all of Africa is the same as Ethiopia - that all of the nations there have existed since before the white man, and so on....

jc

Sand

Does this mean that only the Jews who were in concentration camps and who didnt die are entitled to compensation? And the only people who should be looked to for compensation them are the ones who broke laws to persecute them....and seeing as the laws of the nation in question weren't broken.....

You would have to ask, was slavery a common and widespread and legal practice during the time the Europeans and Americans practiced it ( Have to be precise here as slavery has been and continues to be used by other cultures, especially in Africa and other developing regions ) ?

Then you would have to ask was pre mediated mass genocide a common and widespread and legal practice during the time the Nazis practiced it ( and they set up camps in many countries - so one would assume there would have to be a fairly international view of it) ?

The value of a straight comparison would then become clear. Other than that, yeah, only survivors could sue ( what use is money to the dead? ) and they should sue those who are guilty of the crimes committed- why sue an innocent man? Of course the guilty range from the camp guards to the planners so they should have plenty of ppl on their list.

Theres an interesting precendent arising here though. Not only are we liable for our actions under present laws and morals, now we ( and our descendants it seems) are liable for our actions under *future laws* and morals. Right now smoking is seen as anti-social but legal , in a few decades who knows, the way its going. Someone could sue you because the laws and moral codes of the future are different to the laws and moral codes you live under and practice. I.E a person who has an abortion in britain, this is now legal. 5 Years later the law is changed and this person is now charged with murder - for breaking a law which didnt even exist when she had the abortion.

Clintons Cat

Didnt the swiss case arise because the Swiss Banks were refusing to pass on details of accounts held by holocaust victims to their families and rightful inheritors of the money?
State intervention was required to force the banks to comply.
I dont think it sets a precedent in the legal terms of the world because victims of slavery have no bank accounts accruing interest in switzerland,if they had maybe the world would be a better place.

Turnip

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
Didnt the swiss case arise because the Swiss Banks were refusing to pass on details of accounts held by holocaust victims to their families and rightful inheritors of the money?
State intervention was required to force the banks to comply.
I dont think it sets a precedent in the legal terms of the world because victims of slavery have no bank accounts accruing interest in switzerland,if they had maybe the world would be a better place.

Well the Spanish kept records of the amount of gold they stole from South America so estimates can be arrived at. Crime pays.

bonkey

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
Didnt the swiss case arise because the Swiss Banks were refusing to pass on details of accounts held by holocaust victims to their families and rightful inheritors of the money?
State intervention was required to force the banks to comply.

Not quite.

Under Swiss law, the banks could not divulge this information. It required state intervention to permit them to do so.

It is also worth noting the irony that people believed for years in the power of anonymity that a "numbered swiss bank account" could give you, and then scream bloody murder when details of the account holders wasnt available. Hello? There are a large number of account types from the era in question where there are, quite literally, no details to give. Thats why numbered swiss accounts were so secure. If you were a Jew and afraid that the Germans would exert pressure on the Swiss banks to hand over Jewish money, then the best thing to do is to have an account which is not traceable. Thats what a large number of people did.

It should also be pointed out that the banks cannot divulge information of anyone living without either proof of crime (I think) or the account holders permission. Therefore, in order to divulge the information, you first have to ascertain whether the account holder is, indeed, dead. This is not as simple as it sounds. In the cases where there are not details stored, it is impossible.

The banks faced an impossible task. They got the blame for abiding by the law (not handing over details that the law said they shouldnt). They got blamed for not handing over un-claimed accounts to other people who have no valid claim on them other than a possible shared religion. They got blamed for not keeping better records, when such records would contravene the very anonymity they were offering to those who wanted it.

Basically, the banks got shafted for doing their job properly.

jc

DapperGent

Originally posted by The Corinthian

However, Africa is not simply a creation of the last two centuries.

I'm not arguing that it is. I do think that a huge and over-riding factor in it's problems are the national boundaries it was carelessly left with at the end of colonialism. Looking at the huge efforts that were put into establishing suitable and stable political entities at the end of the British Raj in India/Pakistan in 1949 it seems to me that colonial powers were cognisant of the problems they were leaving behind but in the case of Africa simply didn't care. As it happened Britain truly messed up with the division of the India subcontinent but at least there they tried. If anything approaching that level of effort was put into their disassociation with their African colonies I think we would have a far more stable Africa today.

Many other former colonies were abused as pawns during the cold war but in the case of both South America and South East Asia these nations were essentially monocultural. Indeed one of the major mistakes the Americans made in Vietnam was to consider the Vietminh simply as a communist movement rather than a widely supported nationalist movement that became communist as an aside because no-one else would help them. In Africa cold war interfence caused further schisms along tribal lines which were far more devastating than the ideological or socio-economic based splits seen in monocultural former colonies.

Clintons Cat

Good point Bonkey,
But can you see where i am coming from?Precedence only applies where the the facts can be proven to be materially the same,The ruling would only set a precedent where a deceased reletive had placed funds in a bank and through act of war/displacement been unable to pass on the details of the account to the reletives.
How the money was spent after the court ruling plays no part in the courts adjudication.So because the body that represented the reletives deceides to set up a "Holocaust Fund" (or maybe the court made provision for this to be the most equitable way of distributing funds rather than paying out reletives on an indidual basis),that does not under international law establish a precedent for establishing a "slavery fund"

Clintons Cat

Looking at the huge efforts that were put into establishing suitable and stable political entities at the end of the British Raj in India/Pakistan in 1949 it seems to me that colonial powers were cognisant of the problems they were leaving behind

You are aware that 50 million people were killed or displaced during the civil unrest that accompanied the partition of India?
And that was just the start.

Jammu/Kashmir ring any bells?

How about East Pakistan that after a brutal and bloody civil war became Bangledesh

How about Pakistans disputed NW frontier which arbitarilly cuts through the Pashtun region grouping the western pashtuns with Tajiks,Ushbecks,hajiks and iranians in afganistan with which they had few cultural ties,and led to ISI involvement in the creation of the Taliban.

When it came to arbitarilly slashing lines on a map,the british took a very cavalier attitude to it.

Something struck me whilst looking at the Map of Europe over the centuries even up to the napoleanic wars and by extension into the twentieth century with the establishment of Yugoslavia/the polish corridor/alsaise loraine the creation of Baltic states at the end of the first world war the concept of Maps deliniating Stable and more importantly PERMENENT boundries between nations even in EUROPE is a concept that has only been around for Sixty years or so since the end of the second world war and the onset of the Cold War and the desire to curtail the encroachment of Soviet advance into central europe.With the fall of the soviet union the need or desire for permenant boundries was relaxed and suddenly you had all kinds of splintering and fragmenting and reunifacation of countries throughout eastern and central europe which with hindsight appears to have been achieved with a curious ammount of laisser faire by the countries of Western Europe.

DapperGent

Originally posted by Clintons Cat


You are aware that 50 million people were killed or displaced during the civil unrest that accompanied the partition of India?
And that was just the start.

Jammu/Kashmir ring any bells?

How about East Pakistan that after a brutal and bloody civil war became Bangledesh

The point I was trying to make is that they tried to create stable political enties in West/East Pakistan and India. I did say that they messed it up. I am aware that there was huge bloodshed at the time of partition but from my reading of the history it would have been a lot worse if no efforts had been made and the whole of India was made independent together.

As for Kashmir this essentially wasn't Britain's fault. In order to get the support of the Maharajas for partition they had to allow them some level of self-determination for their own kingdoms (which were essentially independent statelets within India), the Maharaja of Kashmir was a Hindu, 80-90% of his population was Moslem. Despite the best efforts of Mountbatten and others he decided to bring his huge moslem population into India rather than Pakistan. The Indians accepted him probably more to piss Jinnah off than anything else and its a near cause of nuclear war 50+ years later.

East Pakistan was always a bloody stupid idea and the British knew but there was little they could do about it.

Clintons Cat

i wouldnt write off 50 million as "ah well at least they tried,could have been worse",myself.
I have been giving this a little thought and the conclusion i come to is that British Establishment Historians and thereby extension western historical orthodoxy have been more concerned with protecting the reputation of the Last Viceroy to India who as you know was Montebaten the Queens Cousin,they were hardly likely to write that he made a total balls up of the negotiations and handling of partition were they?Not bloomin likely if they had a hankering for a knighthood.

If one takes "it could of been worse" as a starting point I am sure one could make at least as plausible case for the creation of nations of modern africa.
Still one mans best intention is another mans cavalier attitude.
The Devil is as always in the Detail.