Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
Indeed. It`s purely a myth made up by more organised and technologically advanced societies. If you look at such societies in any detail, you find they`re no more or less noble than the ones that conquered them.
Perhaps it stems from an idealised view of a simpler past (that never really existed). We tend to associate that with the time after the industrial revolution, especially in Victorian times, but it`s nothing new. For example, you can find a great deal of it in the later republican and early imperial periods of Rome. Faced with social upheaval, over-population, widespread unemployment and generally poor conditions, many Romans had a romanticised view of a past filled with Roman farmers living simple, noble lives in tune with the land.
Ahh the noble savage. Ever heard of Easter Island?
Sadly I think human nature is to *allways* fall foul of the "tragedy of the commons".
If you aren`t the leader of a tribe or the elder of a village, you can`t use this term appropriately.
Where the English understood trade the natives understood the importance of all of earth`s resources being the inheritance of humanity.Probably why the English were confused when they thought they were "given" land when they were told that all the land was for everyone.
By same conditions I did not mean the slums or the ghettos, I meant the same conditions, like India, or the poorest parts of Africa. (I might have lead my point to that mishap with my badgering of the wrongness of the title "African American")
And as for bankruptcy / people using other people to get where they need to be, I`m not so sure, a lot of slave owners had a lot of money.
This is my proof,"9. Slaves were exploited in the sense that part of the income which they produced was expropriated by their owners. However, the rate of expropriation was much lower than has generally been presumed. Over the course of his lifetime, the typical slave field hand received about 90 percent of the income he produced. "
As for your other point, find me one ghetto that has dirt streets, outside plumbing, malaria, dengue fever, ebola, 45,000 flies per square inch, or the smell of a dead elephant. I think that`s what he meant.
If a ghetto looks bad, that`s just the choice of the people who live there.
I also do not denote the use of slavery but would it have killed them to hire the people? I ask because I really don`t know, would it have harmed where we are today if the slave owners hired them?
Was that chick even alive during slavery? Why does she deserve anything if she wasn`t?
Is she even black? Shoot, Tiger Woods is darker than her, and he`s Asian hehe.
Why don`t we just call it even steven?
Please shoot yourself or refrain from any social contact.Regardless of the context in human terms, it`s sheer arrogance and ignorance.
As long as we don`t just blame the American south of a longass time ago for slavery. Let`s remember who sold African Americans wholesale to them there slavers....OH YEAH! OTHER AFRICAN AMERICANS! Blacks are as much to blame as whites.
buuuuut since there is no reasonable quick fix for stuff that happened wayyy back when, i suggest we just stop bitching and walk side by side from this point forth. unless equality is too much for some people to handle
Usually I point out that we`re in Pennsylvania and that more than likely my ancestors helped their ancestors, if anything. Then I usually point out how that probably isn`t likely, seeing how I`m mostly Syrian and Italian, and then go all True Romance on them and explain how their people pillaged and raped my people, years and years ago (not actually true, I know). So that not only do they probably OWE me something, but deep down I`m one of them.
"Let`s try not to let the white man keep us down, brutha."
From what i`ve learned slavery was quite different back then as compared to the slavery discussed here where the African salves were seen as less human than Caucasian "civilized" people and therefore were right to own and treat however you pleased. Also I read somewhere that in some cases slaves in the US were better off than some of the free people up north (at least economically). And on another interesting note the US only stood for a fairly small part of all slaves brought out from the slaving colonies, so i don`t understand why they always take all the flack.
Then again, who gives a crap? I think it`s time for black people all over to let go of these past events, no matter how cruel they were. I mean giving some tard reparati
Soo very very true
True, but there would have to be a rebate for the attempted Irish invasion of southern Britain, the successful Irish invasion of northern Britain, the endless piratical raids through the centuries (though those went both ways) and, most of all, the terrorism.
Maybe we could dump most of the payment on the Netherlands, as the worst of the offenders was Dutch, not British (William of Orange).
Short summary for those who don`t know - an English civil war was fought in Ireland and the winner spent decades brutally screwing the Irish over partly for supporting the loser and mostly for following a different version of the same religion. That religious and political division has blighted the country ever since.
Although I think the most reprehensible thing was the utter inadequacy of relief measures during the famine, when Ireland was part of the UK.
Appropriate considering your netname, spartan448, as Sparta was essentially a slave state. Only about a tenth of the population was free. Which makes the prating about freedom in 300 one of the many ludicrous things about that film.
How far can I go back? Obviously I get money from Germany for WW2, but can I get extra for the German invasion of Britain in the 5th century? How about from France for the French invasion in the 11th century? From Italy for the Roman invasion in the first century? Who pays me for all my ancestors who were serfs? Not as bad as slavery, but still legally property of someone else. Plus slavery - I could probably find some ancestors who were slaves, most Britons can.
Cause, you know, everyone enslaved was black. There weren`t mixed children / mulattos / white slaves. Of course not...
That would make sense if you were arguing:
i) All descendents of rich white landowners should be forced to give money to everyone else
ii) Everyone who is rich should be forced to give money to everyone else.
But you aren`t arguing either. You`re using a purely racial criterion and trying to disguise it as something else, which makes you dishonest as well as racist.
and back in the day, there were white people slaves in europe, too, you know.
When one person is poor, they have trouble supplying a lot of benefits for their children, who then in turn have trouble with their children, etc.
Although there are many, many cases where people turn out fine due to their parents` wealth, the CHANCES for a person with a poor great great grandmother to obtain a high amount of money is lower than the people who descend from rich white landowners. How easily you lead yourself into money is determined a lot by your parents` wealth, and looking only at a direct connection instead of a general trend caused by years of economical and social racism is a foolishly myopic mistake.
reparations would be a bad idea because there are no slaves anymore. some white people hundreds of years ago had slaves, and now white people today have to pay black people who weren`t slaves? really?
I`m going to be so rich!
I find it hard to believe she`s black.