who's owed more? natives for stolen land or blacks for forced free labor?
Options
Comments
-
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.
He's not talking about Africa though. The topic isn't about Africa though about the descendants of slaves in America. Unless, I'm mistaken, it's basically a "who deserves reparations more" topic. What happened in Africa with colonization has no bearing on that topic. -
i swear sometimes i wish i could shoot you ?
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »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.
He's not talking about Africa though. The topic isn't about Africa though about the descendants of slaves in America. Unless, I'm mistaken, it's basically a "who deserves reparations more" topic. What happened in Africa with colonization has no bearing on that topic.
It does if he's trying to say that conquest makes something less deplorable. He said the Black slaves in America were kidnapped, whereas the indigenous were merely victims of conquest. However, those Black slaves who were kidnapped were also victims of conquest. So again, the discrepancy he is drawing isn't really as clear cut as he is trying to make it seem. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »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.
He's not talking about Africa though. The topic isn't about Africa though about the descendants of slaves in America. Unless, I'm mistaken, it's basically a "who deserves reparations more" topic. What happened in Africa with colonization has no bearing on that topic.
It does if he's trying to say that conquest makes something less deplorable. He said the Black slaves in America were kidnapped, whereas the indigenous were merely victims of conquest. However, those Black slaves who were kidnapped were also victims of conquest. So again, the discrepancy he is drawing isn't really as clear cut as he is trying to make it seem.
no you ? just making it extra hard....you already have a question in your head that your answering without me asking it.
its really a simple question.
but then again.....algebra comes easy to some with ? still struggle to carry the one -
2stepz_ahead wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »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.
He's not talking about Africa though. The topic isn't about Africa though about the descendants of slaves in America. Unless, I'm mistaken, it's basically a "who deserves reparations more" topic. What happened in Africa with colonization has no bearing on that topic.
It does if he's trying to say that conquest makes something less deplorable. He said the Black slaves in America were kidnapped, whereas the indigenous were merely victims of conquest. However, those Black slaves who were kidnapped were also victims of conquest. So again, the discrepancy he is drawing isn't really as clear cut as he is trying to make it seem.
no you ? just making it extra hard....you already have a question in your head that your answering without me asking it.
its really a simple question.
but then again.....algebra comes easy to some with ? still struggle to carry the one
I wasn't even responding to you. Where the ? does your argument come from? Are you an @anduin gaylias? -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »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.
He's not talking about Africa though. The topic isn't about Africa though about the descendants of slaves in America. Unless, I'm mistaken, it's basically a "who deserves reparations more" topic. What happened in Africa with colonization has no bearing on that topic.
It does if he's trying to say that conquest makes something less deplorable. He said the Black slaves in America were kidnapped, whereas the indigenous were merely victims of conquest. However, those Black slaves who were kidnapped were also victims of conquest. So again, the discrepancy he is drawing isn't really as clear cut as he is trying to make it seem.
What you're saying makes no sense. The blacks in America are largely not the victims of African conquest. We were already over here. Again, the question is specifically comparing the plights of Native Americans to the descendants of black slaves in America. The conquest of Africa the continent does not factor into that discussion. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »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.
He's not talking about Africa though. The topic isn't about Africa though about the descendants of slaves in America. Unless, I'm mistaken, it's basically a "who deserves reparations more" topic. What happened in Africa with colonization has no bearing on that topic.
It does if he's trying to say that conquest makes something less deplorable. He said the Black slaves in America were kidnapped, whereas the indigenous were merely victims of conquest. However, those Black slaves who were kidnapped were also victims of conquest. So again, the discrepancy he is drawing isn't really as clear cut as he is trying to make it seem.
What you're saying makes no sense. The blacks in America are largely not the victims of African conquest. We were already over here. Again, the question is specifically comparing the plights of Native Americans to the descendants of black slaves in America. The conquest of Africa the continent does not factor into that discussion.
Right, but Africans were already dominated, subjugated, and made property, sold to other interests as a consequence of other conquests. So, in the context of the post I replied to, how exactly are the causal features of each group's oppression distinct enough to see them as wholly different? If anything, that reasoning actually weakens the view that Americans owe black folks more than they owe native folks since Europe and the middle East were also exploiting that region, buying and selling slaves. Those same groups aren't responsible for the wrongs committed to Native Americans, though, so America holds all of that blame themselves. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »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.
He's not talking about Africa though. The topic isn't about Africa though about the descendants of slaves in America. Unless, I'm mistaken, it's basically a "who deserves reparations more" topic. What happened in Africa with colonization has no bearing on that topic.
It does if he's trying to say that conquest makes something less deplorable. He said the Black slaves in America were kidnapped, whereas the indigenous were merely victims of conquest. However, those Black slaves who were kidnapped were also victims of conquest. So again, the discrepancy he is drawing isn't really as clear cut as he is trying to make it seem.
What you're saying makes no sense. The blacks in America are largely not the victims of African conquest. We were already over here. Again, the question is specifically comparing the plights of Native Americans to the descendants of black slaves in America. The conquest of Africa the continent does not factor into that discussion.
Right, but Africans were already dominated, subjugated, and made property, sold to other interests as a consequence of other conquests. So, in the context of the post I replied to, how exactly are the causal features of each group's oppression distinct enough to see them as wholly different? If anything, that reasoning actually weakens the view that Americans owe black folks more than they owe native folks since Europe and the middle East were also exploiting that region, buying and selling slaves. Those same groups aren't responsible for the wrongs committed to Native Americans, though, so America holds all of that blame themselves.
lol Euros largely bought Africans from other Africans, so that's not a good point. And it still has nothing to do with the topic at hand. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »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.
He's not talking about Africa though. The topic isn't about Africa though about the descendants of slaves in America. Unless, I'm mistaken, it's basically a "who deserves reparations more" topic. What happened in Africa with colonization has no bearing on that topic.
It does if he's trying to say that conquest makes something less deplorable. He said the Black slaves in America were kidnapped, whereas the indigenous were merely victims of conquest. However, those Black slaves who were kidnapped were also victims of conquest. So again, the discrepancy he is drawing isn't really as clear cut as he is trying to make it seem.
What you're saying makes no sense. The blacks in America are largely not the victims of African conquest. We were already over here. Again, the question is specifically comparing the plights of Native Americans to the descendants of black slaves in America. The conquest of Africa the continent does not factor into that discussion.
Right, but Africans were already dominated, subjugated, and made property, sold to other interests as a consequence of other conquests. So, in the context of the post I replied to, how exactly are the causal features of each group's oppression distinct enough to see them as wholly different? If anything, that reasoning actually weakens the view that Americans owe black folks more than they owe native folks since Europe and the middle East were also exploiting that region, buying and selling slaves. Those same groups aren't responsible for the wrongs committed to Native Americans, though, so America holds all of that blame themselves.
lol Euros largely bought Africans from other Africans, so that's not a good point. And it still has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
A lot of slaves in America were purchased from Africans, too. Which adds to my point: both groups were dominated and oppressed as a consequence of some kind of conquest. So how does his view really change anything? -
A lot of slaves in America were purchased from Africans, too. Which adds to my point: both groups were dominated and oppressed as a consequence of some kind of conquest. So how does his view really change anything?
Cause that's not what the topic is about. The question is about what group America owes more. The European colonization, African infighting, and none of that other ? you're talking about is relevant. I don't understand what's hard to understand about that. The conquest of Natives was done by America. That's why its relevant to this discussion. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
A lot of slaves in America were purchased from Africans, too. Which adds to my point: both groups were dominated and oppressed as a consequence of some kind of conquest. So how does his view really change anything?
Cause that's not what the topic is about. The question is about what group America owes more. The European colonization, African infighting, and none of that other ? you're talking about is relevant. I don't understand what's hard to understand about that. The conquest of Natives was done by America. That's why its relevant to this discussion.
So you're agreeing with me, but don't have an answer. America is solely responsible for the oppression of indigenous peoples, whereas a lot of Africans were traded to the Americans after already falling victim to conquest. His view makes even less sense in light of this. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
A lot of slaves in America were purchased from Africans, too. Which adds to my point: both groups were dominated and oppressed as a consequence of some kind of conquest. So how does his view really change anything?
Cause that's not what the topic is about. The question is about what group America owes more. The European colonization, African infighting, and none of that other ? you're talking about is relevant. I don't understand what's hard to understand about that. The conquest of Natives was done by America. That's why its relevant to this discussion.
So you're agreeing with me, but don't have an answer. America is solely responsible for the oppression of indigenous peoples, whereas a lot of Africans were traded to the Americans after already falling victim to conquest. His view makes even less sense in light of this.
No, but you got it man. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
A lot of slaves in America were purchased from Africans, too. Which adds to my point: both groups were dominated and oppressed as a consequence of some kind of conquest. So how does his view really change anything?
Cause that's not what the topic is about. The question is about what group America owes more. The European colonization, African infighting, and none of that other ? you're talking about is relevant. I don't understand what's hard to understand about that. The conquest of Natives was done by America. That's why its relevant to this discussion.
So you're agreeing with me, but don't have an answer. America is solely responsible for the oppression of indigenous peoples, whereas a lot of Africans were traded to the Americans after already falling victim to conquest. His view makes even less sense in light of this.
No, but you got it man.
You just said said "The conquest of Natives was done by America". Yet, history tells us that many of the slaves in America are there as a consequence of the conquest of Africa, by America and other groups, which you agree happened. So if one has 1 main contributor, and the other has many, for which are they more responsible? The one where they are the sole contributor makes the most sense to me.
So, instead of trying to hand wave this problem away with misleading accusations about it being unrelated, clarify the damn point. You've only obscured it
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
A lot of slaves in America were purchased from Africans, too. Which adds to my point: both groups were dominated and oppressed as a consequence of some kind of conquest. So how does his view really change anything?
Cause that's not what the topic is about. The question is about what group America owes more. The European colonization, African infighting, and none of that other ? you're talking about is relevant. I don't understand what's hard to understand about that. The conquest of Natives was done by America. That's why its relevant to this discussion.
So you're agreeing with me, but don't have an answer. America is solely responsible for the oppression of indigenous peoples, whereas a lot of Africans were traded to the Americans after already falling victim to conquest. His view makes even less sense in light of this.
No, but you got it man.
You just said said "The conquest of Natives was done by America". Yet, history tells us that many of the slaves in America are there as a consequence of the conquest of Africa, by America and other groups, which you agree happened. So if one has 1 main contributor, and the other has many, for which are they more responsible? The one where they are the sole contributor makes the most sense to me.
So, instead of trying to hand wave this problem away with misleading accusations about it being unrelated, clarify the damn point. You've only obscured it
The bold does not matter. For like the third time, the discussion is not "Who had it worse?" It's "Which group is owed more?" The fact that Africans got here because other Africans conquered them and sold them has nothing to do with what America owes current day African Americans. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
A lot of slaves in America were purchased from Africans, too. Which adds to my point: both groups were dominated and oppressed as a consequence of some kind of conquest. So how does his view really change anything?
Cause that's not what the topic is about. The question is about what group America owes more. The European colonization, African infighting, and none of that other ? you're talking about is relevant. I don't understand what's hard to understand about that. The conquest of Natives was done by America. That's why its relevant to this discussion.
So you're agreeing with me, but don't have an answer. America is solely responsible for the oppression of indigenous peoples, whereas a lot of Africans were traded to the Americans after already falling victim to conquest. His view makes even less sense in light of this.
No, but you got it man.
You just said said "The conquest of Natives was done by America". Yet, history tells us that many of the slaves in America are there as a consequence of the conquest of Africa, by America and other groups, which you agree happened. So if one has 1 main contributor, and the other has many, for which are they more responsible? The one where they are the sole contributor makes the most sense to me.
So, instead of trying to hand wave this problem away with misleading accusations about it being unrelated, clarify the damn point. You've only obscured it
The bold does not matter. For like the third time, the discussion is not "Who had it worse?" It's "Which group is owed more?" The fact that Africans got here because other Africans conquered them and sold them has nothing to do with what America owes current day African Americans.
If what is owed is measured by how they were wronged and to what extent, then it matters. How else would we make those kinds of calculations? -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
A lot of slaves in America were purchased from Africans, too. Which adds to my point: both groups were dominated and oppressed as a consequence of some kind of conquest. So how does his view really change anything?
Cause that's not what the topic is about. The question is about what group America owes more. The European colonization, African infighting, and none of that other ? you're talking about is relevant. I don't understand what's hard to understand about that. The conquest of Natives was done by America. That's why its relevant to this discussion.
So you're agreeing with me, but don't have an answer. America is solely responsible for the oppression of indigenous peoples, whereas a lot of Africans were traded to the Americans after already falling victim to conquest. His view makes even less sense in light of this.
No, but you got it man.
You just said said "The conquest of Natives was done by America". Yet, history tells us that many of the slaves in America are there as a consequence of the conquest of Africa, by America and other groups, which you agree happened. So if one has 1 main contributor, and the other has many, for which are they more responsible? The one where they are the sole contributor makes the most sense to me.
So, instead of trying to hand wave this problem away with misleading accusations about it being unrelated, clarify the damn point. You've only obscured it
The bold does not matter. For like the third time, the discussion is not "Who had it worse?" It's "Which group is owed more?" The fact that Africans got here because other Africans conquered them and sold them has nothing to do with what America owes current day African Americans.
If what is owed is measured by how they were wronged and to what extent, then it matters. How else would we make those kinds of calculations?
Again, if you read the OP, the TC is clearly talking about what America owes those groups. Africans conquering Africans has nothing to do with that. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
A lot of slaves in America were purchased from Africans, too. Which adds to my point: both groups were dominated and oppressed as a consequence of some kind of conquest. So how does his view really change anything?
Cause that's not what the topic is about. The question is about what group America owes more. The European colonization, African infighting, and none of that other ? you're talking about is relevant. I don't understand what's hard to understand about that. The conquest of Natives was done by America. That's why its relevant to this discussion.
So you're agreeing with me, but don't have an answer. America is solely responsible for the oppression of indigenous peoples, whereas a lot of Africans were traded to the Americans after already falling victim to conquest. His view makes even less sense in light of this.
No, but you got it man.
You just said said "The conquest of Natives was done by America". Yet, history tells us that many of the slaves in America are there as a consequence of the conquest of Africa, by America and other groups, which you agree happened. So if one has 1 main contributor, and the other has many, for which are they more responsible? The one where they are the sole contributor makes the most sense to me.
So, instead of trying to hand wave this problem away with misleading accusations about it being unrelated, clarify the damn point. You've only obscured it
The bold does not matter. For like the third time, the discussion is not "Who had it worse?" It's "Which group is owed more?" The fact that Africans got here because other Africans conquered them and sold them has nothing to do with what America owes current day African Americans.
If what is owed is measured by how they were wronged and to what extent, then it matters. How else would we make those kinds of calculations?
Again, if you read the OP, the TC is clearly talking about what America owes those groups. Africans conquering Africans has nothing to do with that.
I responded to a specific line of inference, and you stuck your nose in it. The OP is not what I responded to. In the context of the posts you decided to address, how do we make these calculations without judging the causal factors behind them? -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
A lot of slaves in America were purchased from Africans, too. Which adds to my point: both groups were dominated and oppressed as a consequence of some kind of conquest. So how does his view really change anything?
Cause that's not what the topic is about. The question is about what group America owes more. The European colonization, African infighting, and none of that other ? you're talking about is relevant. I don't understand what's hard to understand about that. The conquest of Natives was done by America. That's why its relevant to this discussion.
So you're agreeing with me, but don't have an answer. America is solely responsible for the oppression of indigenous peoples, whereas a lot of Africans were traded to the Americans after already falling victim to conquest. His view makes even less sense in light of this.
No, but you got it man.
You just said said "The conquest of Natives was done by America". Yet, history tells us that many of the slaves in America are there as a consequence of the conquest of Africa, by America and other groups, which you agree happened. So if one has 1 main contributor, and the other has many, for which are they more responsible? The one where they are the sole contributor makes the most sense to me.
So, instead of trying to hand wave this problem away with misleading accusations about it being unrelated, clarify the damn point. You've only obscured it
The bold does not matter. For like the third time, the discussion is not "Who had it worse?" It's "Which group is owed more?" The fact that Africans got here because other Africans conquered them and sold them has nothing to do with what America owes current day African Americans.
If what is owed is measured by how they were wronged and to what extent, then it matters. How else would we make those kinds of calculations?
Again, if you read the OP, the TC is clearly talking about what America owes those groups. Africans conquering Africans has nothing to do with that.
I responded to a specific line of inference, and you stuck your nose in it. The OP is not what I responded to. In the context of the posts you decided to address, how do we make these calculations without judging the causal factors behind them?
? , I know what you were initially referencing. My comment was to bring the discussion back on topic. And you calculate based on the interactions between the two parties in question. Say someone totals your car and you're forced to ride the bus until you get another one. Then say some ? robs you while you're waiting at the bus stop one night. The ? that robbed you may owe you the money he stole from you, but he doesn't owe you the cost of your totaled car too just because the loss of your car is what put you in a position to be robbed in the first place. That's basically the argument you're making. -
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
Natives were enslaved longer than anyone in the Americas. Far longer than Africans that were brought here. And like the African, millions of natives from the Americas were shipped from their native lands to Europe and undoubtedly African colonies BEFORE the first African stepped foot off a slave ship in this country.
The mere fact that this is documented, yet the vast majority of the people in this country have no clue that it even happened, is a testament to just how ? up Natives have had it here. -
konceptjones wrote: »
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
Natives were enslaved longer than anyone in the Americas. Far longer than Africans that were brought here. And like the African, millions of natives from the Americas were shipped from their native landsto Europe and undoubtedly African colonies BEFORE the first African stepped foot off a slave ship in this country.
The mere fact that this is documented, yet the vast majority of the people in this country have no clue that it even happened, is a testament to just how ? up Natives have had it here.
Huh? The Transatlantic Slave Trade preceded European colonization of Africa by almost 400 years, so the bold isn't even close to true. I don't think the Natives being enslaved longer is true either. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
A lot of slaves in America were purchased from Africans, too. Which adds to my point: both groups were dominated and oppressed as a consequence of some kind of conquest. So how does his view really change anything?
Cause that's not what the topic is about. The question is about what group America owes more. The European colonization, African infighting, and none of that other ? you're talking about is relevant. I don't understand what's hard to understand about that. The conquest of Natives was done by America. That's why its relevant to this discussion.
So you're agreeing with me, but don't have an answer. America is solely responsible for the oppression of indigenous peoples, whereas a lot of Africans were traded to the Americans after already falling victim to conquest. His view makes even less sense in light of this.
No, but you got it man.
You just said said "The conquest of Natives was done by America". Yet, history tells us that many of the slaves in America are there as a consequence of the conquest of Africa, by America and other groups, which you agree happened. So if one has 1 main contributor, and the other has many, for which are they more responsible? The one where they are the sole contributor makes the most sense to me.
So, instead of trying to hand wave this problem away with misleading accusations about it being unrelated, clarify the damn point. You've only obscured it
The bold does not matter. For like the third time, the discussion is not "Who had it worse?" It's "Which group is owed more?" The fact that Africans got here because other Africans conquered them and sold them has nothing to do with what America owes current day African Americans.
If what is owed is measured by how they were wronged and to what extent, then it matters. How else would we make those kinds of calculations?
Again, if you read the OP, the TC is clearly talking about what America owes those groups. Africans conquering Africans has nothing to do with that.
I responded to a specific line of inference, and you stuck your nose in it. The OP is not what I responded to. In the context of the posts you decided to address, how do we make these calculations without judging the causal factors behind them?
? , I know what you were initially referencing. My comment was to bring the discussion back on topic. And you calculate based on the interactions between the two parties in question. Say someone totals your car and you're forced to ride the bus until you get another one. Then say some ? robs you while you're waiting at the bus stop one night. The ? that robbed you may owe you the money he stole from you, but he doesn't owe you the cost of your totaled car too just because the loss of your car is what put you in a position to be robbed in the first place. That's basically the argument you're making.
If the reason you got robbed is because your car was totalled you could absolutely argue that the person who put you in that situation has some blame for you getting robbed. That could be a kind of consequential damage awarded to a plaintiff. Idk enough about civil law to know how well that would fly, but there have been cases where someone being slandered has sued for lossed wages for jobs they never got because they argued that the slander made them unhireable.
I was on topic: the topic was what the hell was he trying to draw a distinction from when the two situations bare so many similarities. You even agree these causal similarities exist, so I don't know why you couldn't just let him defend his own argument. -
simple answer...blacks deserve more.
my reasoning is native americans lost a lot of their land "legally". some signed paperwork and voluntarily left. some were removed by force in some areas but not all. the government here always recognized them as people and often engaged in negotiations over land. blacks folks were never given an opportunity to cut any type of deal. its really not a comparison. -
semi-auto-mato wrote: »simple answer...blacks deserve more.
my reasoning is native americans lost a lot of their land "legally". some signed paperwork and voluntarily left. some were removed by force in some areas but not all. the government here always recognized them as people and often engaged in negotiations over land. blacks folks were never given an opportunity to cut any type of deal. its really not a comparison.
It wasn't all as upfront and legal as that but you're right that it did take a much more humane and diplomatic shape when it came to the dealings with indigenous groups. Gotta keep in mind white people did a lot of ? things too, like use germs to ? off their populations and hurting them financially by only permitting subsistence farming -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »konceptjones wrote: »
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
Natives were enslaved longer than anyone in the Americas. Far longer than Africans that were brought here. And like the African, millions of natives from the Americas were shipped from their native landsto Europe and undoubtedly African colonies BEFORE the first African stepped foot off a slave ship in this country.
The mere fact that this is documented, yet the vast majority of the people in this country have no clue that it even happened, is a testament to just how ? up Natives have had it here.
Huh? The Transatlantic Slave Trade preceded European colonization of Africa by almost 400 years, so the bold isn't even close to true. I don't think the Natives being enslaved longer is true either.
Right, but the transatlantic slave trade also included shipping slaves from the new world back to Spain, Portugal, etc. In Canada, they used to ship native slaves to the west indies because they could get more money and trade them for African slaves, who tended to be worth more because they lived longer. -
Its really hard to call it. Just economically speaking, free labor for 400 years probably compounded more than what the land would have cost.
this
the enslavement of african americans was far more pervasive as well
