Regarding the blacks marching for reparations tomorrow...

[monstro]

But you and ywtf are arguing that the entire country was “built on the backs of slaves,” and that’s plainly untrue.

Produce the quote where I say, “The entire country was built on the backs of slaves.”

Yes, I believe this nation was built in large part on slave labor. I know it’s subtle, but this is different than saying what you said I did.

And if you peruse the cites I’ve provide–and do a little research yourself–you would see that this is not “plainly untrue”.

(Look at the first several US presidents. Look at what made them so rich and politically well-connected. Look at what they “owned”.)

You repeatedly take one statement and build paragraphs upon it, casting your net wildly.

I don’t know about “repeatedly”, but in the quote you cited, I was expressing a frequent frustration. A lot of people will cry “injustice”, “racism”, “unfair”, or “wah!” when it comes to slave reparations, but will come to the defense of blatantly racist and unfair everyday policies that don’t affect them. And they will also be the first to say someone–usually black–is playing the “race card”. I think this is very hypocritical.

Tristan may or may not fall into this category. If not, good. If so, well I won’t shed any tears if he/she decides to leave the country.

That’s offensive, that’s racist, and that’s stupid.

Personally, it offends me that you think it’s alright not to help pay off the debts your government accrues just because you didn’t personally accrue them. It offends me as a morally-conscious tax-paying citizen of this country. I think people like you should leave the country since you don’t seem to understand the basics of US citizenship.

I don’t see how that makes me racist.

How would you take it if I told you “Slave descendants can go back where they came from”? Would you consider it racist? I sure would.

If slave descendants didn’t want to do their duty as citizens, then I would give them the same advice that I’ve given you. And no, I wouldn’t consider it racist.

[g8rguy]

And this kind of crap is why I’m avoiding these reparations threads. I’m not, obviously, a moderator, but would it be too much to ask the various participants of this thread to refrain from the “you’re a racist/you’re ignorant/you’re a whiner/you’re immature/etc” garbage that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic?

As for “the US was built on the back of slave labor,” it would be nice if people would say what they actually mean. Certainly when I read that statement, I do not see “the US profited from slave labor,” which is inarguable but is also not the same thing, at least as I parse the sentence.

-g8rguy, who like monstro always intends to avoid participating in these debates but tends to get sucked in anyway

[grendel72]

*Originally posted by g8rguy *
"you’re a racist/you’re ignorant/you’re a whiner/you’re immature/etc" garbage that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic?

But there would be no issue if it weren’t for ignorant bigots like LonesomePolecat. I am not in favor of reparations, I know monstro and you with the face are not in favor of reparations. We are, however, opposed to the ignorant spew that has been coming from several posters here. I don’t know that Squish is a bigot, and have never called him one, but he is stepping to the plate to defend bigots- and not doing a very good job of it if the best he can come up with is trying to tar his enemies with a position they have stated many times over that they do not hold.

[DMC]

*Originally posted by t-keela *
**I’m not denying or diminishing the fact that slaves were used extensively in the South for laborious tasks. But, I’ve found no sources backing up the numbers used for developing the infrastructure in the Old South.

I have in fact found support to the idea that most railroads were in the North. A few rails were built in the South, most of which were short lines to and from cities to ports. Practically all of the rails in the South were destroyed during the Civil War.**

Is the USA Today unbiased enough?

From the book Iron Confederacies: Southern Railways, Klan Violence, and Reconstruction by Scott Reynolds Nelson, a history professor at the college of William and Mary:

Instead, as financiers of last resort, state governments in the South had to pay for their own railroads. They did this by issuing state bonds and by using slave labor. They paid some plantation owners with state-backed securities for the use of their slaves. (As commodity prices slumped planters were more and more willing to rent slaves to the railroads.) One railroad, the Charlotte & South Carolina, openly boasted of its labor policy. “By the application of slave labor to the performance of almost the entire work,” the line’s directors wrote in 1848, “railroads in the southern states are built more cheaply than in any other portion of the Union.” The work was punishing in the extreme. To “make the grade” – that is, to keep the track at an even level – slaves had to blast through rocks, losing fingers and eyes in explosions, and shovel mountains of dirt.

Most of the state-financed lines ran intrastate (from the coast inland) not interstate; southern state legislatures were reluctant to pay for infrastructure that would benefit citizens of other states. After secession, the Confederate government, desperate for foodstuffs from the deep South to reach the battlefields of Virginia, set about building an interstate railroad. The Confederate Congress chartered a corporation, the Southern Express Company, to perform the work. Twelve-hundred slaves were leased out to the railroad from Virginia alone. The government used armed force to coerce them, and many were worked to death. One in every three escaped. Those recaptured were either maimed or shot.

It then goes on to discuss the interstate rail system built along the “Confederate Corridor” by the largest corporation in America at the time, the Pennsylvania Railroad. They used convicts to build that. The convicts, of course, were slaves who had committed “crimes” such as stealing a shovel or breaking an oral contract with their masters.

From Monstro’s Washington Post link:

Slaves built the Capitol and the White House? Who knew?

William Allen knew. “I don’t know why this comes as such great news,” said Allen, an architectural historian for the Architect of the Capitol. “When you think of any building being built in that time period, in a slave state, what do you think?”

From the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History:

In the pre-Civil War United States, a stronger case can be made that slavery played a critical role in economic development. One crop, slave-grown cotton provided over half of all U.S. export earnings. By 1840, the South grew 60 percent of the world’s cotton and provided some 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured good that laid the basis for American economic growth. In addition, precisely because the South specialized in cotton production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the slave South, including textile factories, a meat processing industry, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers.

These are just the tip of the iceberg.

[you_with_the_face]

gr8guy:

As for “the US was built on the back of slave labor,” it would be nice if people would say what they actually mean. Certainly when I read that statement, I do not see “the US profited from slave labor,” which is inarguable but is also not the same thing, at least as I parse the sentence.

To take a stab in the dark here, I’m guessing your interpretation is more like “this country wouldn’t have been able to survive without slavery”. Is that about right? If I had that interpretation, then I too would find the statement rather ludicrous…but only to a certain point. The US as we know it today (world power, financial giant even in the face of recession, kick-ass military capabilites, McDonalds on every corner, yaddayaddayadda) would probably not exist if not for the existence of slavery. As much as people want to forget that the South was very much a part of the union in the years prior to the Civil War, the slavery contribution to the development of and expansion into the southern states would have taken years to accomplish without the labor force extracted from Africa. Time is money, remember. Slavery helped generate wealth not only for the planters but also for a country seeking to “manifest its destiny”.

I hate to pretend to be a history scholar here (and admittedly I’ve been slack in the cite department). If anyone can refute anything that I’ve said, feel free. I could probably stand to learn something about my American history, too.

And I also agree that the “you’re ignorant, etc” retorts are poor form. But sometimes, good gollee, I can’t help calling it how I see it! [sigh] I will try to do better.

[g8rguy]

To take a stab in the dark here, I’m guessing your interpretation is more like “this country wouldn’t have been able to survive without slavery”. Is that about right?

To be honest, I don’t know what to think. Would the US be exactly as it is now, economically, without slavery? No, of course not. What would it have been without slavery? I am in no position to say, not being an economic historian. I suspect that we would still be a first world country, but hey, who knows?

Perhaps a better way to state my (admittedly less than fully informed) suspicion is that slavery was one of the pillars on which the American economy was built, but not the only one. I am, of course, open to correction (hence my interest in things like figures about the antebellum economy).

[t-keela]

I started out w/ my mind kinda set against reparations.
I listened to several of the points made in this and the other thread. They made me at least consider the position of pro-reparationists. I’m not adamantly against nor vehemently for either position at this time. Hell, I even tried to assist in it’s support and got shot down there too.

I think I made several good points but they were “overlooked” and focus made on a couple which were questionable. That’s cool, I know how it works. Just be careful you don’t offend your potential proponents in your attempts of self-gratiation. “more flies w/ honey”

What I am is, very tired of the name calling. So much so, that I am leaving this thread. It’s a shame too because I work with “at risk students”, one’s who have been expelled w/ me as their last chance before being sent to a youth facility. You know, PRISON and you also know who the majority of my students are.

I have fought for these poor boys until I’ve been in tears. I teach grades 6-12 ALL subjects and have successfully helped a large % of these guys get on the honor roll and back to school w/ a low recidivism rate.

Yeah I know my grammer here doesn’t reflect this, just takes too long, and you know how these boards are.

The reason I say it’s a shame…because I see people w/ like ambitions and similar viewpoints each confess the same “side” of this debate and YET still act like children. My guys and I put up w/ shit most of you would scream in the first five minutes.

You’re Goddamned right I see what’s up…but money ain’t the answer and on that note, I’m outta here!

The only reason I came back to post this is because of you DMC

PEACE

[g8rguy]

Oh, by the way, you with the face, for this:

And I also agree that the “you’re ignorant, etc” retorts are poor form. But sometimes, good gollee, I can’t help calling it how I see it! [sigh] I will try to do better.

Thanks. That’s all I ask.

[DMC]

*Originally posted by t-keela *
The only reason I came back to post this is because of you DMC

Okay, color me . Does that mean that the rest of your post was directed at me?

**PEACE **

And peace to you.

[DMC]

t-keela,

Upon re-reading my post, I did see that I stated “Is that unbiased enough?” after one of my links, which does sound a little snippy, even though it wasn’t meant that way. It probably comes from debating with another poster on a regular basis, one who calls everything from Reuter’s, the AP, CNN, the UN, AI, and everything else that isn’t written in Hebrew (and maybe even some of that), biased.

If that was the way you took that comment, I’d like to apologize for my poor choice of wording.

[t-keela]

No man, I came back out of respect…remember the BS w/ the Cadillac. You stood up and apologized. later

[DMC]

Oh, got it.

As I said at one point, some of the statements I quoted might not have been hostile, depending on their intent. Your’s was one of them, so you were rightfully due an apology. I do hope that my cites helped to show why I made the leap that I did, even if it was wrong to do so. I’d hate for people to think I make this shit up as I go along (except for those times when I do).

Next time, I’ll stick with quotes that are pretty hard to construe incorrectly.

[you_with_the_face]

t-keela:

I think I made several good points but they were “overlooked” and focus made on a couple which were questionable.

The thread has had a host of digressions and irrelevant rants thrown in, and so I and others might have missed the “good” points you are talking about. Or it’s also possible that you thought they were good points, but no one else thought enough of them to offer comment. Regardless, I don’t want you to feel alienated, honestly.

To be honest, your initial posts gave me the impression that all you cared about was talking about your ancestors who were slaves. The references to checks “rollin in” and Cadillacs didn’t help me take you very seriously. Since then, however, you’ve demonstrated the desire to act least learn more about the subject and actually argue with facts instead of knee-jerk emotions, and for that you’ve earned my respect.

[monstro]

What I am is, very tired of the name calling. So much so, that I am leaving this thread.

I hope it doesn’t mean you’re leaving the board too.

Look, I apologize if I’ve given you a hard time (though I have been nicer to you than I have been to others, and I don’t apologize to them one bit). But how many posts has this thread reached? And how many are from posters who keep reiterating the same tired, “I don’t owe nobody nuttin” line? For someone like me–who doesn’t view slavery as simply another historical event–it touches a nerve. It GETS on my nerves, is probably a better way of saying it.

I admit you prejudiced me earlier with your “Cadillac” post. Even when you claimed ignorance, I still felt you were one of “those guys” and I refused to give you the benefit of the doubt. For this, I’m sorry.

I guess I’m used to being on the defense all the time.

Like I said to Askia at the beginning of this thread, slavery and slave reparations are a touchy issue. As long as I’ve been on this board I haven’t seen a thread on either issues that has been resolved in 50 posts. One day I’ll learn to stay away from them. But they’re so damn addictive!

It’s a shame too because I work with “at risk students”, one’s who have been expelled w/ me as their last chance before being sent to a youth facility. You know, PRISON and you also know who the majority of my students are.

Yes I know. And I think it’s noble that you work with them.

Let’s just call a truce.

[Banger]

What’s with the sudden love-in here?

FIGHTFIGHTFIGHTFIGHTFIGHTFIGHTFIGHTFIGHTFIGHTFIGHT!!!

:mad::wally :smack::mad: :wally :smack::mad: :wally :smack::mad: :wally :smack:

[Tristan]

Monstro- No, I would be leaving the country because my money would finally be going to to many things that I disagree with, and I think that the US gov’t writing checks, or forcing companies to write checks, sets a precedent that will be used to cause the complete disolution of the economy. Total opinion, but that’s what I’ve got.

I don’t say that slaves didn’t build things. But slavery was only legal in some of the US. And even then, only for less then half of the existance of the USA to date. How did slavery help build Montana? The Dakotas?

I’m of the opinion that to claim that slavery, or any other institution, is the direct cause of something as vauge as economic-social development is dangerous, and incredibly speculative.

I am against reparations because it is devisive. I am against reparations because, legally, I think it’s almost impossible to prove descendancy from slaves. I am against reparations because it sets a dangerous precedence.

And I am against reparations because I don’t think it will do a single iota of good to fix any of the issues that the folks lobbying for it are saying it’s all about.

[monstro]

I am against reparations because, legally, I think it’s almost impossible to prove descendancy from slaves.

If someone can prove descendancy from the original Pilgrims, state founders, presidents of the US, Confederate soldiers, and late 19th century immigrants, it seems to me that someone–with enough help–can prove descendancy from slaves.

I can, for instance, and I don’t think I’m a special case. So I don’t think this is a good argument.

A better argument would be how the degree of relation would affect compensation. For instance, if reparations were awarded, would a guy with just one documented slave descendent be just as eligible for money as a person with several documented slave ancestors? Also, does it matter how far removed a person is from a slave ancestor? Does a descendent that’s ten generations removed from his/her closest slave ancestor receive the same compensation as someone who has a documented slave ancestor just three generations away?

The logistics of the situation make it imperative that pro-reparations people go after institutional grants, if they feel compelled to continue this fight. I think most Americans would be able to swallow this better than individual pay-outs, and no one would have to deal with the sticky situation of having to prove their slave heritage.

But slavery was only legal in some of the US.

Slavery was legal in the US, though. Qualifying it with “some” (which is subjective, since the South comprised most of the nation’s territory for a long period of time and slavery was legal in some Northern states as well) does not negate the fact that the federal government allowed it to exist for a long-ass time.

If only some states allowed nuclear bombs to be dropped on its citizens, do you think this fact would prevent these citizens from sueing the federal government for not protecting them?

How did slavery help build Montana? The Dakotas?

Slavery built the foundation of the nation’s economy for a significant part of its history. The establishment of all the states–including Montana and the Dakotas–would have either not happened or would have been significantly delayed if not for the profitable slave industry. No one has produced any evidence that convinces me this kind of speculation is “garbage”. Can you?

I’m of the opinion that to claim that slavery, or any other institution, is the direct cause of something as vauge as economic-social development is dangerous, and incredibly speculative.

I don’t see how it’s dangerous.

But yes, its speculative that slavery is responsible for present-day issues. However, if it was 1902 instead of 2002, I don’t think it would be incredible to say that slavery is responsible for the hardships in the black community. The relationship between racism-perpetuated slavery + slavery-perpetuated racism produced many of the problems that plagued the black community well into the 20th century. Don’t have cites handy as I’m busy this morning, but this has moved beyond the category of speculation and into the realm of historical fact.

I think time makes it harder to see the connection of the present with the past. I don’t know when we decide that the past has no bearing on the present. Perhaps 130 years is long enough. But maybe it isn’t.

[you_with_the_face]

Some if not most of the anti-reparations argument being used bother me because they imply that not even slaves (forget the descendants) were worthy of compensation. If we were having this discussion in the year 1875, I have a feeling people would be saying the same things against it that they are saying now.

Here’s a list of such bothersome arguments summarized from this thread and the Pit thread:

• slavery wasn’t all that bad
• slavery wasn’t all that important to US history
• slavery wasn’t the federal government’s fault
• African cheiftans sold the Africans to us, so why do we carry
  responsibility?
• slaves already received their due compensation
• all ethnic groups have were enslaved at one point in time, so
  there’s nothing special about American slavery
• the Civil War took all the Southern wealth generated by slavery,
  so there is nothing to owe to anyone
• poor whites have suffered, too
• individuals shouldn’t have to pay the price for government
  screw-ups
  -without slavery, the slaves would be out in miserable Africa,
  dying of malnutrition; they should thank the White Man for
  rescuing him from that hell-land

So as you can see, these are arguments that me and others like monstro have been fighting against all along. The most bothersome thing about these arguments is that they could have be used in a discussion about reparations 100 years ago, when actual slavery survivors would have been the recipients of benefits instead of descendants. And that bothers me because I think that while its understandable that slavery descendants receiving reparations provokes debate, I don’t see why there would be any question that slavery survivors are worthy of reparations.