who's owed more? natives for stolen land or blacks for forced free labor?
Options
Comments
-
konceptjones wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »konceptjones wrote: »@ghostdog56 and @5th Letter since y'all like playing word games and act like you don't understand ? , according to this article, using your own logic of a small number of people getting "reparations", Black folks got reparations already...
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-02-12/news/mn-30965_1_racist-mobAt last, the state allocates $2 million in reparations.
'cause, according to you @5th Letter , money that has gone to a handful of people means reparations were paid out to everyone...
If you don't see how ridiculous your arguments have been up to now, I don't know what to say. Trying to point to a few people that got money and saying "Natives got reparations... look, this 17 tribes out of 566 recognized by the federal government got money from a lawsuit" is about as stupid as trying to say that all Black folks in this country got reparations because less than 20 Black families got money from a lawsuit filed for the survivors of Rosewood.
When did I say ALL native Americans got reparations? I have posted two articles that detail the government allocating money to tribal groups. Which is the point.
you asked:5th Letter wrote: »Did native Americans receive reparations. Yes or No? It's unfortunate what has happened to your people but y'all have received resources in the past and continue to do so. You're arguing a point that I wasn't even making.
I replied:konceptjones wrote: »No. Plain and simple. There have been no reparations paid. The only people I can think of that have received money from the government due to their treatment was the Japanese for being put into concentration camps. In 1988, Ronald Regan signed a bill that authorized the payment of $20K to every living survivor. They're the only people I can think of that got money.
To which you responded with:5th Letter wrote: »"The experience of American Indians in obtaining reparations from the federal government should interest those who seek similar actions with respect to Black Americans. American Indians have received three types of reparations: (1) cash payments, through the operation of the Indian Claims Commission and the U.S. Court of Claims; (2) land, through an occasional action of Congress to return control over land to particular tribes; and (3) tribal recognition, by either Congress or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The first of these has been the least satisfactory, measured by long-term impact on Indian communities. The second was more satisfactory, but has been experienced by very few tribes. The third, which is in process now, has had the best results."
and:5th Letter wrote: »U.S. finalizes $3.4 billion settlement with American Indians
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/26/politics/american-indian-settlment/
U.S. Government To Pay $492 Million To 17 American Indian Tribes
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/27/495627997/u-s-government-to-pay-492-million-to-17-american-indian-tribes
These look like pay outs to me.
Within the context of the conversation you're making it seem as if the settlements from LAWSUITS to a handful of tribes and individuals, the return of land rightfully owed to several Tribes, and being federally recognized as a Tribe are, somehow, reparations paid to all Native Americans.
You cannot pin reparations to Natives on the legal wins of a few people just like we can't pin reparations to Black folks on the legal wins of a few.
I guess you assumed I meant literally every living Native American got reparations. Now that confusion was cleared up I clearly posted articles showing you that the government has given reparations to native Americans groups that were also not apart of a lawsuit. -
5th Letter wrote: »I guess you assumed I meant literally every living Native American got reparations. Now that confusion was cleared up I clearly posted articles showing you that the government has given reparations to native Americans groups that were also not apart of a lawsuit.
not one article you posted states this. -
Neither can gauged or put on equal playing fields. Both are devastating and unacceptable.
-
blackgod813 wrote: »Cant put a number on hell they had we had hell but ours lasted for longer
How are you determining this? Before they started bringing African slaves across the Atlantic the genocide had already begun and Natives were already being used for slave labour -
blackgod813 wrote: »Cant put a number on hell they had we had hell but ours lasted for longer
How are you determining this? Before they started bringing African slaves across the Atlantic the genocide had already begun and Natives were already being used for slave labour
Basically.
Within the first year of Columbus landing in the Americas, Natives were already being enslaved and shipped across the Atlantic back to Europe to be sold. By 1565 Natives were being used as slaves at St. Augustine in Florida (the oldest European setlement in North America). Africans didn't get here as slaves for another 50 years. The few that were here prior to the arrival of the first slave ship from Africa were either free men or indentured servants just like the white Europeans.
As I said before, Natives of this land had been slaughtered and enslaved for over 120 years before the first African stepped foot here as a slave. This is an indisputable historic fact. -
but the reason they got the africans was because they didnt know the lay of the land. them indians was outta here. thats like a ? stealing a ? from russia and putting her in new york. wtf she gone do? who she gone call? where she gone get bread? ? please. like ghost said earlier if them natives....aw ? it you get the point
-
ineedpussy wrote: »but the reason they got the africans was because they didnt know the lay of the land. them indians was outta here. thats like a ? stealing a ? from russia and putting her in new york. wtf she gone do? who she gone call? where she gone get bread? ? please. like ghost said earlier if them natives....aw ? it you get the point
That's one of the "myths" about Native enslavement I was speaking about earlier. Natives used as slaves were typically shipped to parts of the country that they weren't familiar with. i.e. Natives from FL being shipped to the Carolinas.
Up to the mid 1700, there were more Natives being used as slaves than Africans in this country alone. For the 50 years leading up to 1720 more Natives were being moved through the port at Charleston, SC than Africans were coming in, and Charleston was one of the biggest ports for bringing in Africans. The reason whitey started relying more on Africans than Natives was largely because they were running out of Natives to enslave. They had raided Florida and Mississippi so badly that the native population was a small fraction of what it once was. They started bringing them in from other parts of the country but eventually lost allies to conduct the raids to capture Natives for slavery. While Native enslavement died out in the original 13 states later in the 1700's, it was thriving from Louisiana to California well into the 1800's. -
This layout is ?
-
So native americans went thru chattel slavery as long as black people.ok..ok dont reservations govern themselves own laws an all
-
blackgod813 wrote: »So native americans went thru chattel slavery as long as black people.ok..ok dont reservations govern themselves own laws an all
To a degree. They're still beholden to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and, should the US government decide to take the land or do whatever they want with it can do just that (i.e. Standing Rock). In fact, Standing Rock shows how that sovereignty is an illusion. Let the Natives take up arms to drive out the oil company and see how fast the Army and National Guard swoop in there. -
konceptjones wrote: »blackgod813 wrote: »So native americans went thru chattel slavery as long as black people.ok..ok dont reservations govern themselves own laws an all
To a degree. They're still beholden to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and, should the US government decide to take the land or do whatever they want with it can do just that (i.e. Standing Rock). In fact, Standing Rock shows how that sovereignty is an illusion. Let the Natives take up arms to drive out the oil company and see how fast the Army and National Guard swoop in there.
they ran up on the ingins for not paying tax on cigarettes.
but to an earlier point of yours...
my grandfather hated white people because of what he had to deal with....but then my dad hated the natives cuz of how he was treated.
-
Indians had good negotiaters for their reservations, casinos, free college etc...
? negotiated for rights to eat with crackers, front seat bus rights, etc.. ? think small ? all that ? give me an 800 credit score, 40 acres and a ? -
You do realize Blacks were here first right? So both scenarios apply to Black people. Ask Claud Anderson.
-
so no talk about the cost of the regentrification of Manhattan or the employee compensation of the slaves?
-
Free Black men in what is now Nova Scotia (Canada) had Native slaves. Some of you guys are neglecting the fact that for a long time, in New France in particular, Panis slaves were more common.
-
one lost during conquest while somehow getting enough mercy that they weren't totally wiped out while the other group was kidnapped and exploited for generations. Not even close in my eyes.
-
Blacks since we look the most different on earth we are hated we are the other ..plus they trained us in cruelty..
-
one lost during conquest while somehow getting enough mercy that they weren't totally wiped out while the other group was kidnapped and exploited for generations. Not even close in my eyes.
How didn't africa lose in conquest? The entire continent was colonized except for Ethiopia (which many say is debatable because Italy) -
one lost during conquest while somehow getting enough mercy that they weren't totally wiped out while the other group was kidnapped and exploited for generations. Not even close in my eyes.
How didn't africa lose in conquest? The entire continent was colonized except for Ethiopia (which many say is debatable because Italy)
That's a different issue though. The question isn't "Who got it worse? Native Americans or Africans." It's who is owed more between Native Americans and African Americans. -
It has to be us. Let's just call it 100 slaves per plantation working 12 hour days at minimum wage for 30+ years. You don't have to pay that labor, but you make 100% on the sales. And all you had to do was pay a one time fee for a potential Life long laborer, that more than likely would produce more laborers. Land has a somewhat fixed price. If you add up all those hours that should have been paid, we would probably out spend the natives by a good margin.
That's just off the top of my head and that's without inflation. -
Stupid thread btw
-
It has to be us. Let's just call it 100 slaves per plantation working 12 hour days at minimum wage for 30+ years. You don't have to pay that labor, but you make 100% on the sales. And all you had to do was pay a one time fee for a potential Life long laborer, that more than likely would produce more laborers. Land has a somewhat fixed price. If you add up all those hours that should have been paid, we would probably out spend the natives by a good margin.
That's just off the top of my head and that's without inflation.
about damn time someone gets it.
100 people...lets say 50 men and 50 women....so, 50 couples. they reproduce, they each have 2-3 kids.
that 100 just jumped to like 250..
repeat in like 15 years....sell off a few here and there.
that is nothing but profit -
Lol oppression olympics
-
2stepz_ahead wrote: »It has to be us. Let's just call it 100 slaves per plantation working 12 hour days at minimum wage for 30+ years. You don't have to pay that labor, but you make 100% on the sales. And all you had to do was pay a one time fee for a potential Life long laborer, that more than likely would produce more laborers. Land has a somewhat fixed price. If you add up all those hours that should have been paid, we would probably out spend the natives by a good margin.
That's just off the top of my head and that's without inflation.
about damn time someone gets it.
100 people...lets say 50 men and 50 women....so, 50 couples. they reproduce, they each have 2-3 kids.
that 100 just jumped to like 250..
repeat in like 15 years....sell off a few here and there.
that is nothing but profit
Nobody is asking who the white man benefitted from most. The question is who is owed more.
We blacks tend to think that we're on the bottom of the pile in America. That in itself is a testament to how bad the Natives have it. They are below us in pretty much every area. Hell, one of the hot button topics these days is police brutality. Natives experience that at a significantly higher level than we do, but no one talks about it. Think about that for a second. They have it so bad the no one even cares about how bad they have it. Now consider this was once their land. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »one lost during conquest while somehow getting enough mercy that they weren't totally wiped out while the other group was kidnapped and exploited for generations. Not even close in my eyes.
How didn't africa lose in conquest? The entire continent was colonized except for Ethiopia (which many say is debatable because Italy)
That's a different issue though. The question isn't "Who got it worse? Native Americans or Africans." It's who is owed more between Native Americans and African Americans.
It's not a different issue if he's trying to say that conquest is what makes the subjugation of the native Americans less deplorable. Both Africa and the Americas are products of conquest, so he's trying to make a distinction that doesn't seem to really exist how he presents it.
