"Blacks ought to be thankful for slavery; otherwise, they'd be back in Africa."

[Chris 62]

I actually read the whole thread, so just a few things.

The Holocaust thing is out of place, the Zion movement started long before uncle Adolph shows up to slaughter Jews.

Also, the Holocaust was about murder, slavery is something that has been with humanity from the begining, and still exsists today, in, you guessed it, Africa.

Reperations are nonsense for obvious reasons, first of which:

It was legal, and you therefore can't sue someone for doing somthing that is leagal, whether you agree with it's morality or not.
Secondly, can anyone produce a single person alive today who was a black slave?
You can't collect damages on something done to an ancestor, it's inane, it's like me telling a Turk he owes me because the Ottomans held Greece for centuries.
It just doesn't hold water.
Third, prove damages, if you can somehow produce a way around the first two arguments.
Despite what people argue, Black slavery was 99 percent agrucultural, in the Southern US.
The people who owned those slaves lost the US civil war, and lost heavily, so you would have to tract down their decendents.
And why should they have to pay anything?
If your great grandfather stole Guy, should we hold you to blame?
Of course not.

The real problem is a generation of Black leaders that have been preaching reperations, and other nonsense like "Blacks built this country, the whites own you everything", this kind of bullsh1t is what caused all this.
There is no reason on this earth why I should have to pay someone because there ancestor was a slave.
So was mine, in Greece, and many others.

Are blacks better off by slavery?
Nope.

Africa isn't all bad, only parts, other areas are quite prosperous, but the feeling of being owed something is quite strong there.

This whole argument is bull from all sides.

Oh, and David, Orange is right about you, your own posting proves it.

PS: It's a damn shame people didn't didn't listen to Ben Franklin, he wanted an anti-slavery clause in the US Constitution.
If they had only listened....

[orange]

Originally posted by Guynemer
The problem is, better off compared to what? People in Africa today? Yes. Other people in American today? No. And what if slavery had never happened? Are blacks better off compared to how they would be if slavery had never happened, and had immigrated as most other ethnic groups have? No.

That's where I disagree. They're better off than people in Africa, and they're better off than how they would have been if never been AMERICAN slaves. The truth is, they would have been slaves somewhere else, or even domestic slaves, or they would have died of disease, or they would have died in religious wars which were and are still common in Africa. I don't see how you could prove that as a race, African Americans are worse off than Africans. Does that justify slavery though? Not on your life

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lancer
A POW that wasn't sold as a slave would be tortured to death. Is he better off being sold as a slave? Put yourself in his place Guynemer. Sure, living as a slave would be very bad, but wouldn't it be better than being tortured to death?

Not generally true. Most PoWs were enslaved within African society. Like white slaves in Europe, Black slaves in Africa weren't treated all that badly. American slavery and Old World slavery were two very different beasts (we are excepting East Asia in this argument).

Some things to consider.

The world would be a completely different place had there been no American slavery. Slavery was necessary for the sugar plantations of the Carribean. Slavery on tobacco, indigo, and cotton created the wealth that England (and later the US) used to prime the pumps of capitalist economy. No slavery, and maybe industrialism would have taken another hundred or so years.

England and France and the Netherands might not have had the wealth to break the Spanish Empire, so maybe all of Europe would be united under a Hapsburg monarchy.

Black people wouldn't exist at all, since Black people are a African-European mix.

No slavery, no American Civil War, and the weapons advances that allowed Europe to conquer the rest of the world in the later half of the 19th Century may not have happened.

Without stealing 10 to 100 million people from the continent of Africa, maybe Africa would have been able to resit the European invasions, which are by far and away the most important reasons for the state of Africa today.

Okay, so, if slavery hadn't happened, Black people wouldn't exist, and existence is better than non-existence.

But it's not an argument against reperations.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by orange


That's where I disagree. They're better off than people in Africa, and they're better off than how they would have been if never been AMERICAN slaves. The truth is, they would have been slaves somewhere else, or even domestic slaves, or they would have died of disease, or they would have died in religious wars which were and are still common in Africa. I don't see how you could prove that as a race, African Americans are worse off than Africans. Does that justify slavery though? Not on your life

Dammit Orange, we're talking about MY suppositions here, not yours. They would have been slaves somewhere else, etc? Che covers this pretty well. Frankly, I don't think it matters. American blacks would be in a much better state if slavery had never existed. Would there be as many black Americans? Possibly not; hard to say, actually. But they'd be a lot better off.

[orange]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Frankly, I don't think it matters. American blacks would be in a much better state if slavery had never existed. Would there be as many black Americans? Possibly not; hard to say, actually. But they'd be a lot better off.

Well of COURSE they'd be better off in America if slavery never existed. I didn't think we had to state that!

[orange]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
England and France and the Netherands might not have had the wealth to break the Spanish Empire, so maybe all of Europe would be united under a Hapsburg monarchy.

I agree with you up until you said this. Spain was crumbling with or without the rise of France and England. They didn't allow their own country to grow, they didn't allow industry to grow in their own country. This was their fault, not the fault of French British and Dutch pressure. All of Europe under a Hapsburg Monarchy - not a chance.

Black people wouldn't exist at all, since Black people are a African-European mix.

Eh?

No slavery, no American Civil War, and the weapons advances that allowed Europe to conquer the rest of the world in the later half of the 19th Century may not have happened.

I honestly don't think that, on a grand scale, the Civil war led to that many advancements...at least...not enough that the world wouldn't have caught up. Though I do agree the civil war wouldn't have happened.

Without stealing 10 to 100 million people from the continent of Africa, maybe Africa would have been able to resit the European invasions, which are by far and away the most important reasons for the state of Africa today.

Though I agree with the last sentence, the first is probably inaccurate. They lost because they were out teched, not because they were out massed.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by orange


Well of COURSE they'd be better off in America if slavery never existed. I didn't think we had to state that!

Bloody hell man, that was my entire point! That saying they were better off because of slavery was absolute nonsense, because black Americans would have much higher status had slavery never existed. (Just as Jews would be far better off without the Holocaust. As many have pointed out, they might have gotten Israel anyway.)

Dig? We okay now, bro?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by orange
Though I agree with the last sentence, the first is probably inaccurate. They lost because they were out teched, not because they were out massed.

Hey outmassing someone lets you outtech them...

At least it works that way in Civ.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Guynemer


Hey outmassing someone lets you outtech them...

At least it works that way in Civ.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Guynemer


Bloody hell man, that was my entire point! That saying they were better off because of slavery was absolute nonsense, because black Americans would have much higher status had slavery never existed.

Yeah, those non-existent black americans...



Okay, I have to stop replying to this thread....

[orange]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Bloody hell man, that was my entire point! That saying they were better off because of slavery was absolute nonsense, because black Americans would have much higher status had slavery never existed. (Just as Jews would be far better off without the Holocaust. As many have pointed out, they might have gotten Israel anyway.)

Dig? We okay now, bro?

Ok, but assuming they weren't brought over as slaves, they wouldn't have been 'brought over' at all, and they would have been in Africa - where NOW they are worse off than African Americans are NOW.

If an African simply came to the US assuming slavery never existed, then of course African Americans in the US would be better off than they were under the real history where slavery existed.

But we're only 'okay' when you admit that you lost the Iroquois debates! Face it, your partner was Ribannah...I mean seriously now...

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by orange

But we're only 'okay' when you admit that you lost the Iroquois debates! Face it, your partner was Ribannah...I mean seriously now...

Bugger off. If you'll consult the transcripts, you'll note that I disavowed her tactics and extremist stance, while still defending the right of the Iroquois to be included in Civ3.

SUCCESSFULLY defending, I should say.

[Guynemer]

And, again, I should state that immigration from Africa is quite high now... there's no reason to think that, without slavery, such immigration could have started earlier, and those immigrants would have been regarded as other immigrant groups to the US--****ty, but still better than slaves.

[David Floyd]

orange-

You know what? I'm sick of this. If it offends you for me to post and argue for my opinion, I'll make it real easy. I just won't. If you would rather insult someone you don't know than carry on civilized discussion, than I'll have no further part in it.

My position on this issue is well-known, and unrefuted - certainly not by orange.

Since I have nothing more to add to it, I'll just drop it.

Some of what you said really did piss me off, just so you know.

Whatever.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
orange-

You know what? I'm sick of this. If it offends you for me to post and argue for my opinion, I'll make it real easy. I just won't.

Whine whine, that's not what I'm 'offended' by at all. I've listened to a lot more of the liberal pacifist junk than just what you spout. And while I may not agree with it, I'll always debate it with a cool head. What I get pissed off at is when you slap one of your little "i've been robbed" catch phrases to everything. If you're against taxation, fine. If you're against welfare, fine. If you're against war, fine. I don't care. But when you come on here and say "the blacks have stolen enough of my money through welfare and taxes" I'm going to get damn pissed, and yeah, I'm going to call you a selfish prat. Don't like it - I don't care!

If you would rather insult someone you don't know than carry on civilized discussion, than I'll have no further part in it.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm insulting a screen. You can take what I say to heart, you can take what I say with a grain of salt. Truth is - I won't know, and in the long run I probably won't care. When I see stuff that is just outright offensive and selfish, I'm going to call you on it, despite whether or not you think it's just 'defending your beliefs' You quickly forget that we're in agreement on this issue almost 100%, yet you feel the need to add **** that is first of all untrue, and second of all and more importantly - hurts the feelings of an entire set of people. I'll support my beliefs in any civilized debate, but I'll fight fire with fire when you go offending people, whether it's me you're offending or not.

My position on this issue is well-known, and unrefuted - certainly not by orange.

Maybe that's because I agree with your position?

Some of what you said really did piss me off, just so you know.

Likewise. Else why would I come off the way I did?