You can only help people of non-white races so much. Consider blacks. Sure, they were exploited somewhat when they came to Britain and the US. But they were helped a lot more. How were they helped? Through being brought to lands of opportunity... which many of them have taken advantage of.
How did blacks (their ancestors) become slaves in the first place? They were sold to whites and other blacks by black slave traders, mostly in Africa. So, while their lot might have been hard, they should actually be paying whites for saving them.
I thought you used to be all religious and Christianity based. If that be, you wouldn't justify slavery by any claims like you talking about being thankful for being brought yo a land of opportunity you call it and that blacks did sold blacks for slavery. In essence, all these somehow justifies what was done to the black race from the times past!
Saint Paul says, 1 Corinthians 7:21:
You really get to amaze me the way you've coined this.
It not like the blacks were all peaceful before the arrival of there colonial masters but, the arrival of the foreign race stirred up grief, pushed for more wars than necessary in Africa and most of them forks ended up at the end of a whip. Not to mention the conditions these guys where put through from transportation down to surviving on a farm. Where you have your wife been taken before your eyes...
It's just not worth saying but, don't try to bring it into context for any comparison, it just doesn't feel any appealing.
Certainly crimes are always being done. These kinds of crimes are still being done between some influential employers and their employees. The wrong part is to redo the crimes against and between races... even the race of employers vs. the race of employees. The question is how to deal with each crime on an individual basis, so that criminality is not done to the innocent.
You can only help people of non-white races so much. Consider blacks. Sure, they were exploited somewhat when they came to Britain and the US. But they were helped a lot more. How were they helped? Through being brought to lands of opportunity... which many of them have taken advantage of.
How did blacks (their ancestors) become slaves in the first place? They were sold to whites and other blacks by black slave traders, mostly in Africa. So, while their lot might have been hard, they should actually be paying whites for saving them.
No offense, but I find a kind of racism in your presentation of the subject, especially that you present the subject in the form of constants, while they are relative ideas that are subject to interpretation in different forms.
I may be wrong in my evaluation of the way you put forward the subject, but I would really like to deal with matters on the basis of the relative evaluation and interpretation that may differ from one person to another.
I am sorry if my evaluation of your subject holds a biased point of view, because blacks are human beings who live like us in societies that are subject to all kinds of pressures and even exploitation as peoples whose history was distorted by colonialism in various forms.
Thank you. The point of the article - though it is hidden somewhat - is that of racism in different directions. Slavery doesn't have anything to do with racism. Slavery is simply between the master and the slave, no matter the race of either. Reparations as they are generally touted, have to do with, and are, racist.
In the big picture, reparations are simply a way for somebody to make money by inciting the races against each other, and then profiting off the insurrection that follows.
Rasmussen told me that although it’s easy to make the case that black citizens are owed reparations—the right to own slaves is embedded in the Constitution, after all—this doesn’t mean that the case being made has any real substance. The idea of reparations, noted Rasmussen, fails for many reasons.
...
Do you mean that the right to own slaves exists in the current US Constitution? Or is he talking about the old constitution when it was legal to own slaves in the United States? please explain.
Slavery is Constitutional in at leas two ways:
1. The mindset of the people who were behind the Constitution that they wrote, was a mindset of allowed slavery. This means that all their Constitutional writings were written with allowed slavery in mind, as well as a whole lot of other things... including correctly done freedom for a slave.
The 14th Amendment takes freed slaves and turns them into a thing called
citizens. What are
citizens? They are slaves of the government that they are citizens of. Before the 14th Amendment, the US government essentially had no man/woman citizens.
2. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 in the Constitution, is known as the
Contract Clause, the right to contract. If a man/woman, having complete understanding of what they are doing, contract themselves into slavery to another, there is nothing that can prevent this, legally and lawfully. The courts have adjudicated that people are free to enter into contracts, and that government doesn't have any authority over this freedom -
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-10/clause-1/contract-clause. In fact, all contracts bind their makers into slavery in a fashion, by limiting their freedom in some ways.
In fact, the only reason why people are required to pay IRS taxes is because they have contracted themselves into doing so... although few people understand this, or how to contract out. The IRS Form W-4 is a quasi-contract that binds a person into a form of slavery to the IRS.