Reparations Now, Reparations Tomorrow, Reparations Forever!
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
We are increasingly hearing rhetoric in the mainstream media asserting that America’s wealth today is due to the unpaid labor of slaves picking cotton, which therefore justifies “Reparations now, reparations tomorrow, reparations forever!”
iSteve commenter commenter Barnard responds with an excellent idea for how to pay reparations:
Of all the stupid ideas taught about American history today, “America’s wealth was built on the slave labor of Black people” has to be the dumbest and most easily debunked. The percentage of American wealth that was created by agricultural based slave labor is minuscule. I fully support all reparations being paid in Confederate dollars.
The one word rebuttal to all slavery-related economic questions is: “Canada”.
That’s what the US would be like without past slavery. Canada with 10 times the people.
Plain fact is the US has a much, much better overall geographical situation--farmland, resources, river transport, access to markets--as either Canada or Australia, plus the scale of a much larger internal market that comes with those advantages. Yet those places do not suck.
The key, shared ingredient was a reasonable intelligent, capable, hard-working Anglo-Saxon settler population gaining access to undeveloped (to Euro ag/tech) lands. They created prosperity and the rule-of-law.
I.e. the key ingredient was deplorable white people. No blacks were required. No immigrants post-1776 were required. (Could have skipped taking in my ancestors and this joint would still be awesome just from the founding population.) The plain fact is blacks were a "get rich quick" scheme for some landholders that the rest of us have been paying for--in civil war, in taxes, in depreciated real-estate, in lower quality of life, in extra social and political contention and of course in crime, ever since.
Not trying to piss all over anyone or rub it in anyone's face. But that's just the reality. And if people are spewing these objectively ridiculous minoritarian fables to attack whitey then this reality needs to be spoken out loud and repeatedly.Replies: @we
Here’s Gavin Wright on how things would have turned out if the USA had abolished slavery shortly after the Revolution:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZLLNGFiwtrjeza5oZwFQRG-J3MQdn1cP/view
The whole “Cotton built America” thesis is wrongheaded:https://jacobinmag.com/2019/08/how-slavery-shaped-american-capitalismReplies: @Steve Sailer
Reparations could be the key to solving America’s race conflict, provided they are tied to voluntary separation.
In a nutshell: use eminent domain to purchase land for an African American homeland in the states with the largest black % of their populations now, like Mississippi and Alabama. Then offer generous reparations to any African American who renounces his American citizenship and moves there.
Any African American who declines reparations and decides to stay in the U.S. could do so, but would be treated like any other American: no affirmative action, no disparate impact, no special dispensation by local authorities to commit crimes without being arrested by the police, etc.
According to the estimate here, the net fiscal impact of African Americans (taxes paid minus government resources consumed) was -481 billion dollars per year in 2018, or about -$10,200 per person. Over a lifetime, that would mean the average African American consumes about $750k more in government resources than he or she pays in taxes. If that’s true, then spending anything less than the present value of that on reparations and eminent domain would be a bargain (presumably, the African Americans who turned down reparations and decided to stay in the U.S. would be net fiscal contributors, on average).
We've heard stories of retirees moving abroad for lower cost of living, but we could grant further tax breaks to incentivize people to retire in the Old Country.
Expats can be an incorrigible bunch, like Mr. Roosh, but blacks don't have even a Second World African country to arbitrage. (In his earlier days, I recall his black PUA followers liking Brazil)
---
If we split the US into Redstan and Bluestan(s), its reasonable that relocation assistance could be provided.
The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery. Lottery winners. Their ancestors suffered, but they reap the reward of living in a (previously) white run nation with white prosperity and white rule-of-law.
If blacks want reparations for slavery, they need to give up the huge benefit that they've gotten from slavery--US citizenship.
I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.
Separation is far preferable to any of this special treatment and especially all the minoritarian whining and lying.
But the beauty of advancing "separation" is that just saying it will induce wailing and gnashing of teeth. "Separation" simply debunks the entire minoritarian narrative. If you're oppressed why don't you want to split?Replies: @Cato, @Cloudbuster, @B36, @ziggurat, @Anonymous, @William Badwhite
One word:
AUSTRALIA
Great idea. Or, to remind them of what they escaped by getting to America, Zimbabwean dollars.
OT: Berkeley police make arrest in fatal shooting of Cal student
https://www.berkeleyside.com/2020/08/21/berkeley-police-make-arrest-in-fatal-shooting-of-cal-student
I am utterly shocked that the suspect is an oppressed man of color with an extensive criminal record who is a victim of system racism, implicit bias and the legacy of slavery who deserves long-overdue reparations.
Hey, that’s Judah Benjamin on that Confederate currency!
What ever happened to the biblical injunction that said (to paraphrase) “the sins of the father does not lie on the sons?”
Most people barely acknowledge or pay for their own mistakes, much less that of people who lived and died long before them? Since American blacks on average are many times more wealthy than African blacks still living there, are they going to make reparations to the descendants of the victims of their own tribal oppressions? Why limit reparations to Americans?
Do any of the reparations mongers plan on compensating any of the crime victims of their own ancestors? (Not all have those, but no one mentions that.)
We don’t live in a world where all that we now have magically dropped from the sky into our bank accounts and homes, due to our ancestors. Yes, a few who have wealthy parents benefit from that, but even then, over time, few living today are fat and happy Rockefellers. So why all the grousing?
It’s just a naked scam as anyone can see. Places now with black governments are all poorer and have been, than the US. Per that evidence, as is painfully clear to everyone not scamming, there is no actual moral or economic argument to be made about slave reparations.
As we all know, people who always blame their current troubles on others are doomed to a life of misery and psychological dysfunction. It’s bad enough to blame one’s parents. But to blame the long dead ancestors of people no one alive knew is absurd.
But con artists and scammers often prefer the Big Lie, since the details and logic don’t matter. I have yet to read of any Woke celebrity who has personally made “reparations” to individual Americans of African descent. Alex Baldwin? Bill & Hil? Bernie? AOC? Who?
Conservative elites are often either covert liberals, or coerced to shift liberal to maintain social status. Their audience inevitable has followed along.
Con Inc doesn't want to stop the Culture Industry's white guilt, indeed they want to make it a religious dogma.
If people are angry at what the establishment is doing, and at black rioting; the solution is found by targeting the funds by which the Culture Industry operates.
You don't need to have Netflix.
The average per capita income in sub-Saharan Africa is $1500 dollars. The average black income in the US is about $17,000. Roughly a delta of $15,000 per year. The median age of black Americans is 30.1 years. So, to a first order, every black American can just cut us a check for $450,000 and we’ll call it even.
The bizarre show Watchmen on HBO had a compelling idea, although I dont think I would support it.
In it, direct descendents of victims of the 20s Tulsa riot (which I believe began as a battle between white and black criminal gangs and is filled with fanciful apocrypha like a plane bombing the so called “black wall street” (because blacks were so oppressed)) are given homesteads in the Tulsa area. It is implied that the community contains a thriving black middle class.
Its an interesting idea – it would be far easier to verify the details of crimes that happened in 1920, as opposed to assumed non specific crimes before then, and the scenes where people would get their DNA read was amusing.
It seems like the real victims of the United States propserity were the industrial workers of all color in the pre progressive era.
I am white, so incapable of really understanding these issues, but isnt it a bit dismissive of the very real sacrifice of civil rights era blacks? We are to believe there has been absolutely no progress I guess. Very insulting to these people who endured far more than any black born since 1970 or so.
And the high numbers of deaths that you see people tossing around (100 to 300) are just pulled out of thin air. The official tally from The Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921 is 39 deaths(counting a stillborn infant), 26 Blacks and 13 Whites, which is quite a distance from the mass slaughter of legend:https://www.okhistory.org/research/forms/freport.pdfReplies: @Reg Cæsar
BTW – I believe that guy on the confederate $2 bill is Judah P. Benjamin, the only non-racist Confederate who ever lived.
The question that should be answered by anyone demanding reparations is “Would you rather have been born in Africa or the United States?” If they answer “Africa” give them their reparations but deduct the cost of a ticket back to their beloved Wakanda. The remainder of their reparations will be paid upon their successful repatriation to their Motherland. If they answer “United States” then they forfeit any claims for reparation in recognition of their good fortune of being born here.
For every single American descendant of a slave there would be no play at all. No gleam of light between two eternities of darkness for them. Only darkness. They would never have existed.
Reparations for blacks is essentially reparations for the unfortunate natural fact that they are black.
You would have to be the biggest idiot in the history of stupid not to realize how much gigantically better off the USA would be if it had never seen a Negro.
No one, and I mean NO ONE, actually believes this crap. Just a scam, and a scam about to go seriously a cropper, as the Economy continues to deteriorate.
The economy is improving.Replies: @theMann
That's what the US would be like without past slavery. Canada with 10 times the people.Replies: @AnotherDad, @syonredux, @Wilkey, @Buffalo Joe, @Antonius
Or “Australia”.
Plain fact is the US has a much, much better overall geographical situation–farmland, resources, river transport, access to markets–as either Canada or Australia, plus the scale of a much larger internal market that comes with those advantages. Yet those places do not suck.
The key, shared ingredient was a reasonable intelligent, capable, hard-working Anglo-Saxon settler population gaining access to undeveloped (to Euro ag/tech) lands. They created prosperity and the rule-of-law.
I.e. the key ingredient was deplorable white people. No blacks were required. No immigrants post-1776 were required. (Could have skipped taking in my ancestors and this joint would still be awesome just from the founding population.) The plain fact is blacks were a “get rich quick” scheme for some landholders that the rest of us have been paying for–in civil war, in taxes, in depreciated real-estate, in lower quality of life, in extra social and political contention and of course in crime, ever since.
Not trying to piss all over anyone or rub it in anyone’s face. But that’s just the reality. And if people are spewing these objectively ridiculous minoritarian fables to attack whitey then this reality needs to be spoken out loud and repeatedly.
In a nutshell: use eminent domain to purchase land for an African American homeland in the states with the largest black % of their populations now, like Mississippi and Alabama. Then offer generous reparations to any African American who renounces his American citizenship and moves there.
Any African American who declines reparations and decides to stay in the U.S. could do so, but would be treated like any other American: no affirmative action, no disparate impact, no special dispensation by local authorities to commit crimes without being arrested by the police, etc.
According to the estimate here, the net fiscal impact of African Americans (taxes paid minus government resources consumed) was -481 billion dollars per year in 2018, or about -$10,200 per person. Over a lifetime, that would mean the average African American consumes about $750k more in government resources than he or she pays in taxes. If that's true, then spending anything less than the present value of that on reparations and eminent domain would be a bargain (presumably, the African Americans who turned down reparations and decided to stay in the U.S. would be net fiscal contributors, on average).Replies: @216, @AnotherDad, @Corvinus, @MBlanc46, @Chris Mallory, @anon
Our present tax policy appears to discourage expatriates, unlike in the European Union which seems to almost encourage it.
We’ve heard stories of retirees moving abroad for lower cost of living, but we could grant further tax breaks to incentivize people to retire in the Old Country.
Expats can be an incorrigible bunch, like Mr. Roosh, but blacks don’t have even a Second World African country to arbitrage. (In his earlier days, I recall his black PUA followers liking Brazil)
—
If we split the US into Redstan and Bluestan(s), its reasonable that relocation assistance could be provided.
Most people barely acknowledge or pay for their own mistakes, much less that of people who lived and died long before them? Since American blacks on average are many times more wealthy than African blacks still living there, are they going to make reparations to the descendants of the victims of their own tribal oppressions? Why limit reparations to Americans?
Do any of the reparations mongers plan on compensating any of the crime victims of their own ancestors? (Not all have those, but no one mentions that.)
We don't live in a world where all that we now have magically dropped from the sky into our bank accounts and homes, due to our ancestors. Yes, a few who have wealthy parents benefit from that, but even then, over time, few living today are fat and happy Rockefellers. So why all the grousing?
It's just a naked scam as anyone can see. Places now with black governments are all poorer and have been, than the US. Per that evidence, as is painfully clear to everyone not scamming, there is no actual moral or economic argument to be made about slave reparations.
As we all know, people who always blame their current troubles on others are doomed to a life of misery and psychological dysfunction. It's bad enough to blame one's parents. But to blame the long dead ancestors of people no one alive knew is absurd.
But con artists and scammers often prefer the Big Lie, since the details and logic don't matter. I have yet to read of any Woke celebrity who has personally made "reparations" to individual Americans of African descent. Alex Baldwin? Bill & Hil? Bernie? AOC? Who?Replies: @216, @Dieter Kief, @S
We live in a society where conservatives have nil cultural power. The media and academia are entirely leftist.
Conservative elites are often either covert liberals, or coerced to shift liberal to maintain social status. Their audience inevitable has followed along.
Con Inc doesn’t want to stop the Culture Industry’s white guilt, indeed they want to make it a religious dogma.
If people are angry at what the establishment is doing, and at black rioting; the solution is found by targeting the funds by which the Culture Industry operates.
You don’t need to have Netflix.
Honestly I’d be ok with fairly substantial reparations being paid to all black citizens, as long as we all agree that it’s done and we never have to talk about it again.
That's what the US would be like without past slavery. Canada with 10 times the people.Replies: @AnotherDad, @syonredux, @Wilkey, @Buffalo Joe, @Antonius
If anything, slavery was holding America back:
http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2016/12/capitalism-and-slavery-debate-is-not.html
Here’s Gavin Wright on how things would have turned out if the USA had abolished slavery shortly after the Revolution:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZLLNGFiwtrjeza5oZwFQRG-J3MQdn1cP/view
The whole “Cotton built America” thesis is wrongheaded:
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/08/how-slavery-shaped-american-capitalism
In a nutshell: use eminent domain to purchase land for an African American homeland in the states with the largest black % of their populations now, like Mississippi and Alabama. Then offer generous reparations to any African American who renounces his American citizenship and moves there.
Any African American who declines reparations and decides to stay in the U.S. could do so, but would be treated like any other American: no affirmative action, no disparate impact, no special dispensation by local authorities to commit crimes without being arrested by the police, etc.
According to the estimate here, the net fiscal impact of African Americans (taxes paid minus government resources consumed) was -481 billion dollars per year in 2018, or about -$10,200 per person. Over a lifetime, that would mean the average African American consumes about $750k more in government resources than he or she pays in taxes. If that's true, then spending anything less than the present value of that on reparations and eminent domain would be a bargain (presumably, the African Americans who turned down reparations and decided to stay in the U.S. would be net fiscal contributors, on average).Replies: @216, @AnotherDad, @Corvinus, @MBlanc46, @Chris Mallory, @anon
Spot on Dave. Spot on.
The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery. Lottery winners. Their ancestors suffered, but they reap the reward of living in a (previously) white run nation with white prosperity and white rule-of-law.
If blacks want reparations for slavery, they need to give up the huge benefit that they’ve gotten from slavery–US citizenship.
I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.
Separation is far preferable to any of this special treatment and especially all the minoritarian whining and lying.
But the beauty of advancing “separation” is that just saying it will induce wailing and gnashing of teeth. “Separation” simply debunks the entire minoritarian narrative. If you’re oppressed why don’t you want to split?
So on what will we spend the $200k each of those blacks owes us for the benefit of being born in in a fantastically better, more prosperous country? ... I'm assuming you are saying each will pay the US $200k, right, to help balance the scales and put them back where they would be if they had been born in Africa?Replies: @AnotherDad
It's been said on these boards that African Americans on average have greater incomes and wealth today than Africans in any country on the old continent.
But something else: only a very small fraction of Africans brought to the New World as slaves by the European colonial powers were deposited in what is now the United States. The vast majority went to the Caribbean and South America. So why do today's American proponents of reparations ignore this, why are they so provincial, as if racial justice stops at the border? Why aren't they pushing reparations throughout the New World? If reparations are just, there should be reparations in Brazil, Haiti, and so on. Of course these other countries are usually poor so payments would be paltry. But the African Americans, having won the lottery, would surely be willing to chip in and redistribute some of their reparation payments to their poorer brothers and sisters in the rest of the New World. Considering the original international slave trade numbers, 95% of AA reparations would be a fair amount to redistribute elsewhere.
https://chocolateclass.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/09.jpg
Whereas our government is presently printing trillions and trillions, and
whereas there has recently been much talk of reparations, and
whereas there is widespread belief in the incurability of systemic, anti-black racism, and
whereas there is urgency to quickly address reparations and systemic racism,
... let us immediately enact the following proposal …
… 200K to any black U.S. citizen, with these conditions:
1) must give up U.S. citizenship and any U.S. residency/visa status
2) move to a majority black country, with no option to ever return
… and these national conditions:
3) end affirmative action and all other existing, explicitly race-conscious governmental policies
4) require that all immigrants have to be of Western European heritage
You might say, “wait that’s too expensive!” But a trillion is a big number. With one trillion, you could pay 5 million people 200K. And Congress just created a 2 trillion dollar stimulus package, while seemingly every day, the Federal Reserve is announcing a new trillion dollar program. What’s a few more trillion on the heap?
With 8 trillion, you could pay all 40 million blacks to leave.
However, would they leave? Maybe not all at once, but after a few have left and got settled, then others would follow. But which countries would take them? We might need to incentivize those countries too.
How many would need to leave to make it worth it? If 50% left, would that be better? Should it just apply to those in their "fertility prime"? Perhaps, if past the "fertility prime", the reparations is just 100K?
In one way, it's a win just talking about it, as AnotherDad says:Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder
This is all very funny but remember Steve King being the sanest man in Congress and being castigated by his own party for it. When the enemies of America have enough anti-white nonwhites occupying our government it will be “our” nominal side that votes reparations into effect, as a Lucy football proving non-racism.
PLANTATION OWNER: “You, Boy! Where are all my darkies at?”
SLAVE BOY: “Dey’s gone off to build another neoclassical public building, Massa.”
PLANTATION OWNER: “Dagnabbit! Tell them to get back here and pick my dang cotton!”
That's what the US would be like without past slavery. Canada with 10 times the people.Replies: @AnotherDad, @syonredux, @Wilkey, @Buffalo Joe, @Antonius
Nope. You also need to include Australia and New Zealand in that, just to drive home the point that Canada isn’t merely a one off, or simply well-off due to its proximity to the United States. The colonies established by Anglo-Saxon settlers from Great Britain are all doing quite well, thank you, and our success has absolutely nothing to do with slavery.
The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery. Lottery winners. Their ancestors suffered, but they reap the reward of living in a (previously) white run nation with white prosperity and white rule-of-law.
If blacks want reparations for slavery, they need to give up the huge benefit that they've gotten from slavery--US citizenship.
I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.
Separation is far preferable to any of this special treatment and especially all the minoritarian whining and lying.
But the beauty of advancing "separation" is that just saying it will induce wailing and gnashing of teeth. "Separation" simply debunks the entire minoritarian narrative. If you're oppressed why don't you want to split?Replies: @Cato, @Cloudbuster, @B36, @ziggurat, @Anonymous, @William Badwhite
Were I Black, and could walk through the [safer] streets of Kinshasa without being recognized as a foreigner, I think it would be a cool place to live. Especially if I had $200K to start me off. I wouldn’t try anywhere in East Africa, because I wouldn’t look local — especially not in Ethiopia. But Kinshasa! The few women I’ve met from there were extremely hot.
Hot Congo women? *shudder*
Reminder:
Precious few African-Americans have ever gone “home” when they’ve been free to do so since 1865.
That's what the US would be like without past slavery. Canada with 10 times the people.Replies: @AnotherDad, @syonredux, @Wilkey, @Buffalo Joe, @Antonius
onetwothree, but but,there would be no peanut butter.
Forty acres and a mule.
In Liberia.
Sure we will miss their contributions to math and science, but we’ve held them back long enough.
Fair is Fair.
The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery. Lottery winners. Their ancestors suffered, but they reap the reward of living in a (previously) white run nation with white prosperity and white rule-of-law.
If blacks want reparations for slavery, they need to give up the huge benefit that they've gotten from slavery--US citizenship.
I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.
Separation is far preferable to any of this special treatment and especially all the minoritarian whining and lying.
But the beauty of advancing "separation" is that just saying it will induce wailing and gnashing of teeth. "Separation" simply debunks the entire minoritarian narrative. If you're oppressed why don't you want to split?Replies: @Cato, @Cloudbuster, @B36, @ziggurat, @Anonymous, @William Badwhite
I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.
So on what will we spend the $200k each of those blacks owes us for the benefit of being born in in a fantastically better, more prosperous country? … I’m assuming you are saying each will pay the US $200k, right, to help balance the scales and put them back where they would be if they had been born in Africa?
What will it say about all the crap the minoritarians have rained down upon us for 60 years--"racism!" "legacy of slavery", "oppression", "systemic racism", etc.--when we offer $200K to young blacks to renounce and move back to Africa ... and almost none of them do? Or all the shrieks and howls at this reparations offer itself?
Minoritarianism--minorities oppressed/virtuous, majorities (white gentiles) oppressive/evil; now the official establishment ideology, more important than trivial stuff like "equal justice under law" or even "rule of law" itself--is an end-to-end lie. A lie debunked by the actual behavior of ... pretty much everyone in the world, immigrants, blacks, the whites who parrot it, even the Jews who have peddled it.
Demonstrating the absolute fraudulence of the entire minoritarian project is the critical PR task of patriots.Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Ben tillman
The few women I’ve met from there were extremely hot.
Hot Congo women? *shudder*
In it, direct descendents of victims of the 20s Tulsa riot (which I believe began as a battle between white and black criminal gangs and is filled with fanciful apocrypha like a plane bombing the so called "black wall street" (because blacks were so oppressed)) are given homesteads in the Tulsa area. It is implied that the community contains a thriving black middle class.
Its an interesting idea - it would be far easier to verify the details of crimes that happened in 1920, as opposed to assumed non specific crimes before then, and the scenes where people would get their DNA read was amusing.
It seems like the real victims of the United States propserity were the industrial workers of all color in the pre progressive era.
I am white, so incapable of really understanding these issues, but isnt it a bit dismissive of the very real sacrifice of civil rights era blacks? We are to believe there has been absolutely no progress I guess. Very insulting to these people who endured far more than any black born since 1970 or so.Replies: @syonredux
Most of what you hear from the MSM about the Tulsa Riot is distorted/fabricated.
The Tulsa Riot was caused by armed Blacks who marched to the courthouse in an attempt to protect a Black man who was accused of assaulting a White woman:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre#Stand-off_at_the_courthouse
If the armed Blacks had not intervened, there likely would have been no riot.And Blacks did most of the killing on the first day of the riot:
Day one death toll:
Whites: 10
Blacks: 2
The stories about aeroplanes firebombing black-owned properties is utter crap. What person in his right mind would fill a Curtiss JN-4 Jenny (a highly combustible aircraft; WWI-era pilots were well-known for their fear of fire) with turpentine-soaked rag balls, which would have to be lit by hand before being dropped ? Even this overly credulous aviation site seems to have trouble imaging that scenario:
http://fly.historicwings.com/2017/02/the-bombing-of-tulsa/
And the high numbers of deaths that you see people tossing around (100 to 300) are just pulled out of thin air. The official tally from The Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921 is 39 deaths(counting a stillborn infant), 26 Blacks and 13 Whites, which is quite a distance from the mass slaughter of legend:
https://www.okhistory.org/research/forms/freport.pdf
Send them all over to England. Slavery was their idea, not ours.
Besides, it would serve them right – after spending the last 15o years staggering towards the fainting couch, swooning “Slavery…….my word; how infradig you colonists are” – to open their front door and find themselves trapped in an endless loop of reruns of THE WIRE.
That’s what white people said years ago about civil rights ,desegregation ,affirmative action ,blah,blah,blah…………here we are sixty five years later ……will you be OK with debasing the currency by printing the seventeen trillion they want?
The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery. Lottery winners. Their ancestors suffered, but they reap the reward of living in a (previously) white run nation with white prosperity and white rule-of-law.
If blacks want reparations for slavery, they need to give up the huge benefit that they've gotten from slavery--US citizenship.
I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.
Separation is far preferable to any of this special treatment and especially all the minoritarian whining and lying.
But the beauty of advancing "separation" is that just saying it will induce wailing and gnashing of teeth. "Separation" simply debunks the entire minoritarian narrative. If you're oppressed why don't you want to split?Replies: @Cato, @Cloudbuster, @B36, @ziggurat, @Anonymous, @William Badwhite
“The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery.”
It’s been said on these boards that African Americans on average have greater incomes and wealth today than Africans in any country on the old continent.
But something else: only a very small fraction of Africans brought to the New World as slaves by the European colonial powers were deposited in what is now the United States. The vast majority went to the Caribbean and South America. So why do today’s American proponents of reparations ignore this, why are they so provincial, as if racial justice stops at the border? Why aren’t they pushing reparations throughout the New World? If reparations are just, there should be reparations in Brazil, Haiti, and so on. Of course these other countries are usually poor so payments would be paltry. But the African Americans, having won the lottery, would surely be willing to chip in and redistribute some of their reparation payments to their poorer brothers and sisters in the rest of the New World. Considering the original international slave trade numbers, 95% of AA reparations would be a fair amount to redistribute elsewhere.
I’ll see your deuce, raise you a buck:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y9XJ0cv3Pz8/TZM1VebkUyI/AAAAAAAACEw/u1foQRwIHIM/s1600/zimbabwe1.JPGReplies: @Reg Cæsar
Was a slave in the old South, who received housing, food, health care and clothing, etc. from his owner significantly worse off than an Irish immigrant working in the factories of the North for pay, but having to provide all those things for himself? They both seem like slaves to me.
The slaves who had it the worst were those who were drafted into the armed forces of the United States. Tally the number of dead and compare it to any ludicrously exaggerated death toll a Lefty ascribes to slavery in this country.
Another recently fabricated narrative is that the GI Bill was an example of systemic racism in that blacks allegedly got shafted in regard to the program’s benefits, and that this is a big part of the current wealth difference. But what did they do to earn those benefits?
Of more than 400,000 dead US servicemen, a grand total of 708 were black.Replies: @Corvinus
And the high numbers of deaths that you see people tossing around (100 to 300) are just pulled out of thin air. The official tally from The Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921 is 39 deaths(counting a stillborn infant), 26 Blacks and 13 Whites, which is quite a distance from the mass slaughter of legend:https://www.okhistory.org/research/forms/freport.pdfReplies: @Reg Cæsar
Though not by Paul Harvey who, like Tony Randall, was still in diapers in 1921 Tulsa.
Here’s Gavin Wright on how things would have turned out if the USA had abolished slavery shortly after the Revolution:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZLLNGFiwtrjeza5oZwFQRG-J3MQdn1cP/view
The whole “Cotton built America” thesis is wrongheaded:https://jacobinmag.com/2019/08/how-slavery-shaped-american-capitalismReplies: @Steve Sailer
I think that without slavery, the South would have developed more slowly with population growing slower, rather like Florida south of the Panhandle was pretty empty until the late 19th Century.
LOL. Is this your sacrificial lamb, Mr. Sailer?
Slaves are long-lived capital assets which reproduce themselves. They appreciated with plantation expansion, depreciated with age, and “vanished” via capital loss (e.g. death, disability, or escape). There was an active secondary market for slaves between plantations, and slaves trained in the industrial arts (called artisan slaves) were contracted out for services rendered.
The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/civil-war-cotton-capitalism-114776https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/05/03/the-clear-connection-between-slavery-and-american-capitalism/#64ba06407bd3http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-kingReplies: @Anonymous, @syonredux, @Grahamsno(G64), @Ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @Jester... or jester
“Of all the stupid ideas taught about American history today, “America’s wealth was built on the slave labor of Black people” has to be the dumbest and most easily debunked.”
LOL. Is this your sacrificial lamb, Mr. Sailer?
Slaves are long-lived capital assets which reproduce themselves. They appreciated with plantation expansion, depreciated with age, and “vanished” via capital loss (e.g. death, disability, or escape). There was an active secondary market for slaves between plantations, and slaves trained in the industrial arts (called artisan slaves) were contracted out for services rendered.
The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/civil-war-cotton-capitalism-114776
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/05/03/the-clear-connection-between-slavery-and-american-capitalism/#64ba06407bd3
http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-king
"Baptist asserts that “almost half of the economic activity of the United States in 1836
derived directly or indirectly from cotton produced by… slaves” (2014, p. 322). As Olmstead
and Rhode show, this figure is an egregious overstatement, generated by double-counting
outputs, inputs, asset sales and financial transactions (2018, p. 13). Cotton production
accounted for about five percent of GDP at that time. Cotton dominated U.S. exports after
1820, but exports never exceeded seven percent of GDP during the antebellum period. True,
cotton textiles were important for U.S. industrialization, and New England mills used the same
slave-grown raw material as their competitors in Lancashire. But location within national
boundaries had little economic significance for this industry. As a bulky but lightweight
commodity, raw cotton travels easily, and transportation costs play little if any role in textiles
geography. The protective tariff – strongly opposed by the slave South – was of far greater
importance for the competitiveness of the antebellum industry (Harley 1992, 2001)."
"The preceding section suggests that if slavery had been abolished nationally at the time
of the Constitution, the Cotton South would have developed through family-scale farms like the
rest of the country, delivering as much or perhaps more cotton to the eager textile mills of
Lancashire, and building a more diverse and prosperous regional economy in the process."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZLLNGFiwtrjeza5oZwFQRG-J3MQdn1cP/viewReplies: @Corvinus
For anyone needing to refresh their knowledge and shield themselves from Corvinus' drivel, here's a concise economic assessment of slavery with meaningful numbers.
http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2018/06/was-slavery-central-to-american.html
The topic has been exhaustively researched, way more than it actually should, and you need some serious mental gymnastics to come to a different conclusion.Replies: @syonredux, @Corvinus
In a nutshell: use eminent domain to purchase land for an African American homeland in the states with the largest black % of their populations now, like Mississippi and Alabama. Then offer generous reparations to any African American who renounces his American citizenship and moves there.
Any African American who declines reparations and decides to stay in the U.S. could do so, but would be treated like any other American: no affirmative action, no disparate impact, no special dispensation by local authorities to commit crimes without being arrested by the police, etc.
According to the estimate here, the net fiscal impact of African Americans (taxes paid minus government resources consumed) was -481 billion dollars per year in 2018, or about -$10,200 per person. Over a lifetime, that would mean the average African American consumes about $750k more in government resources than he or she pays in taxes. If that's true, then spending anything less than the present value of that on reparations and eminent domain would be a bargain (presumably, the African Americans who turned down reparations and decided to stay in the U.S. would be net fiscal contributors, on average).Replies: @216, @AnotherDad, @Corvinus, @MBlanc46, @Chris Mallory, @anon
Kigali looks nice.
In a nutshell: use eminent domain to purchase land for an African American homeland in the states with the largest black % of their populations now, like Mississippi and Alabama. Then offer generous reparations to any African American who renounces his American citizenship and moves there.
Any African American who declines reparations and decides to stay in the U.S. could do so, but would be treated like any other American: no affirmative action, no disparate impact, no special dispensation by local authorities to commit crimes without being arrested by the police, etc.
According to the estimate here, the net fiscal impact of African Americans (taxes paid minus government resources consumed) was -481 billion dollars per year in 2018, or about -$10,200 per person. Over a lifetime, that would mean the average African American consumes about $750k more in government resources than he or she pays in taxes. If that's true, then spending anything less than the present value of that on reparations and eminent domain would be a bargain (presumably, the African Americans who turned down reparations and decided to stay in the U.S. would be net fiscal contributors, on average).Replies: @216, @AnotherDad, @Corvinus, @MBlanc46, @Chris Mallory, @anon
That’s a reasonable enough proposal, Dave, but you know that, not only will it never be implemented, it could never seriously be proposed.
The point of this sort of "reparations with separation" or any of the other "separation" ideas is that merely proposing them and stoking the outrage precisely gives away the minoritarian game.
The plain fact is the minoritarians are parasitic upon whites. (Which to be clear does not mean there aren't talented minorities doing real work and contributing.) Minorities keep demanding to come toward whites--immigration, integration of your school, country club, neighborhood, nations ... while endlessly whining.
Saying "We can solve your 'oppression' problem, we'll just separate" unmasks the game. It is absolutely critical that conservatives, patriots, do precisely this. Until we blow up their sleazy narrative the minoritarians will keep burying us in bucket after bucket of their sad sack "oppression" shit.Replies: @MBlanc46
The reparations money would/will be used to decamp to White places. There will be plenty of decamping money left over after Nikes; how many pairs of Nikes do you need? Even if acceptance of reparations is expressly tied to separation, the promise to separate would/will be ignored. The Supreme Court would invalidate any “I will not decamp” promise as fast as you can say “Roberts.”
“Sorry“ number two: The idea of speaking out. Today you would merely be fired, and, lose your family and friends, unless you happen to live in a dwindling number of places. After the ‘la Justice Department takes control in 2021, you will be jailed for a “hate crime.” The chilling effect will silence you. Heck, you might say something over the dinner table, and your own kids would repeat it to the teacher, and off you go. So you don’t say it in the first place.
Blacks in the West have an almost pathological need to be surrounded by urban squalor, and a pathological aversion to rural areas and nature.
American slaves received far more from Whites than they gave back in labor. What they received for their labor was more than the global market rate. Food, shelter, medical care, care in old age, stability, protection from violence. On average they clearly had it better under White governance than they did in Africa.
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/AAKARR/3-dollar-bill-paper-money-from-the-bahamas-AAKARR.jpgReplies: @Escher
An African currency is the way to go.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y9XJ0cv3Pz8/TZM1VebkUyI/AAAAAAAACEw/u1foQRwIHIM/s1600/zimbabwe1.JPGReplies: @Reg Cæsar
Careful. Many of those are counterfeit. Seriously– collectors want them.
The Mugabe dollar is the rare currency the value of which has appreciated over time. You can’t get the hundred-trillion note for 40¢ anymore.
Meanwhile, a Georgia cop just lost his job over the incident as shown below.
Perhaps reparation costs could be significantly reduced in relation to black people’s time-honored tradition of the abuse of law enforcement, and inherent consequential costs of processing them. In that context, black people are very expensive to have around.
Thinking it through, coupled with their reliance on Roosevelt’s “new deal,” I think they might owe white people money.
We already know the score on reparations, straight from the Marxist mouths of Black Lives Matter – when black people break in and steal what they want, that’s reparations.
So you see, all inner-city armed robbery, every break-in, every riot with looting – it’s all reparations. But what if you’ve looted everything within reach?
Black activists have already identified the problem, and found the solution. Call it the Willie Sutton strategy – to get the money, go where the whites are. The expensive shopping districts, and ESPECIALLY the suburbs.
In a related story, Michigan’s Leftist governor won’t let go of her pet program – some sort of direct public transportation that goes from inner city Detroit into wealthy Ann Arbor. Ballot initiatives have failed miserably – there’s nothing Democrat strategists hate more than needing the approval of voters. There’s got to be a way!
Geography also works in her favor since East Lansing is much farther from Detroit.Replies: @Anonymous, @Ron Mexico, @Anon7
LOL. Is this your sacrificial lamb, Mr. Sailer?
Slaves are long-lived capital assets which reproduce themselves. They appreciated with plantation expansion, depreciated with age, and “vanished” via capital loss (e.g. death, disability, or escape). There was an active secondary market for slaves between plantations, and slaves trained in the industrial arts (called artisan slaves) were contracted out for services rendered.
The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/civil-war-cotton-capitalism-114776https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/05/03/the-clear-connection-between-slavery-and-american-capitalism/#64ba06407bd3http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-kingReplies: @Anonymous, @syonredux, @Grahamsno(G64), @Ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @Jester... or jester
So….you failed completely to address why Canada, Australia, and New Zealand prospered without slavery, and most of Latin America — which had slavery in far vaster forms… didn’t? Honestly, you seem very slow on the uptake — based directly on your bolded portions — on the idea that in the 19th Century ownership of people as a measurement of wealth actually mattered as a real factor in economic development. So, to break it down to your comprehension level: a non-slave region with lots of factories and railroads could be on paper poorer than a slave region with lots of slaves…the fact this is so should be a deep lesson in humility for economists and economic historians. Free those slaves with a stoke of a pen, and suddenly that wealth disappears…the region is not nearly so wealthy or productive per free citizen. (Factories and railroads can also be destroyed, it just takes more than laws, and the societies that produced them are more intrinsically productive.) I’m also curious about the fact the abolition of slavery did nothing to retard the growth of the British Empire in 1833 — Brazil had 60 years of slavery advantage there — nor was the British Empire more than slightly inconvenienced by the American Civil War. It seems risible, by the way, to any thinking man, that Yankee trading ships, roaming the oceans even before the United States was formed, would not have found other cheap sources of cotton for Northern factories. What I think cute, but ironic, and also not to a small extent pathetic, is anyone defending slavery reparations droning on about the importance of King Cotton with the earnestness of a Mississippi plantation owner circa 1857. My opinion is anyone asserting slavery is responsible for American growth is a provincial rube ignorant of global history, and should study said subject with much more diligence…but if you are merely a propagandist, I do apologise — I understand you are just doing your job. We all have to make a living.
LOL. Is this your sacrificial lamb, Mr. Sailer?
Slaves are long-lived capital assets which reproduce themselves. They appreciated with plantation expansion, depreciated with age, and “vanished” via capital loss (e.g. death, disability, or escape). There was an active secondary market for slaves between plantations, and slaves trained in the industrial arts (called artisan slaves) were contracted out for services rendered.
The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/civil-war-cotton-capitalism-114776https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/05/03/the-clear-connection-between-slavery-and-american-capitalism/#64ba06407bd3http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-kingReplies: @Anonymous, @syonredux, @Grahamsno(G64), @Ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @Jester... or jester
I would recommend that you read Gavin Wright’s work, dear fellow:
“Baptist asserts that “almost half of the economic activity of the United States in 1836
derived directly or indirectly from cotton produced by… slaves” (2014, p. 322). As Olmstead
and Rhode show, this figure is an egregious overstatement, generated by double-counting
outputs, inputs, asset sales and financial transactions (2018, p. 13). Cotton production
accounted for about five percent of GDP at that time. Cotton dominated U.S. exports after
1820, but exports never exceeded seven percent of GDP during the antebellum period. True,
cotton textiles were important for U.S. industrialization, and New England mills used the same
slave-grown raw material as their competitors in Lancashire. But location within national
boundaries had little economic significance for this industry. As a bulky but lightweight
commodity, raw cotton travels easily, and transportation costs play little if any role in textiles
geography. The protective tariff – strongly opposed by the slave South – was of far greater
importance for the competitiveness of the antebellum industry (Harley 1992, 2001).”
“The preceding section suggests that if slavery had been abolished nationally at the time
of the Constitution, the Cotton South would have developed through family-scale farms like the
rest of the country, delivering as much or perhaps more cotton to the eager textile mills of
Lancashire, and building a more diverse and prosperous regional economy in the process.”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZLLNGFiwtrjeza5oZwFQRG-J3MQdn1cP/view
The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery. Lottery winners. Their ancestors suffered, but they reap the reward of living in a (previously) white run nation with white prosperity and white rule-of-law.
If blacks want reparations for slavery, they need to give up the huge benefit that they've gotten from slavery--US citizenship.
I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.
Separation is far preferable to any of this special treatment and especially all the minoritarian whining and lying.
But the beauty of advancing "separation" is that just saying it will induce wailing and gnashing of teeth. "Separation" simply debunks the entire minoritarian narrative. If you're oppressed why don't you want to split?Replies: @Cato, @Cloudbuster, @B36, @ziggurat, @Anonymous, @William Badwhite
Here’s my restatement of the idea, with some ebellishments, expressed in a more formal way:
Whereas our government is presently printing trillions and trillions, and
whereas there has recently been much talk of reparations, and
whereas there is widespread belief in the incurability of systemic, anti-black racism, and
whereas there is urgency to quickly address reparations and systemic racism,
… let us immediately enact the following proposal …
… 200K to any black U.S. citizen, with these conditions:
1) must give up U.S. citizenship and any U.S. residency/visa status
2) move to a majority black country, with no option to ever return
… and these national conditions:
3) end affirmative action and all other existing, explicitly race-conscious governmental policies
4) require that all immigrants have to be of Western European heritage
You might say, “wait that’s too expensive!” But a trillion is a big number. With one trillion, you could pay 5 million people 200K. And Congress just created a 2 trillion dollar stimulus package, while seemingly every day, the Federal Reserve is announcing a new trillion dollar program. What’s a few more trillion on the heap?
With 8 trillion, you could pay all 40 million blacks to leave.
However, would they leave? Maybe not all at once, but after a few have left and got settled, then others would follow. But which countries would take them? We might need to incentivize those countries too.
How many would need to leave to make it worth it? If 50% left, would that be better? Should it just apply to those in their “fertility prime”? Perhaps, if past the “fertility prime”, the reparations is just 100K?
In one way, it’s a win just talking about it, as AnotherDad says:
LOL. Is this your sacrificial lamb, Mr. Sailer?
Slaves are long-lived capital assets which reproduce themselves. They appreciated with plantation expansion, depreciated with age, and “vanished” via capital loss (e.g. death, disability, or escape). There was an active secondary market for slaves between plantations, and slaves trained in the industrial arts (called artisan slaves) were contracted out for services rendered.
The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/civil-war-cotton-capitalism-114776https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/05/03/the-clear-connection-between-slavery-and-american-capitalism/#64ba06407bd3http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-kingReplies: @Anonymous, @syonredux, @Grahamsno(G64), @Ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @Jester... or jester
Yes thanks and if the Slaves were liabilities rather than assets why did the South fight to death over the issue?
Anon[277] has already done the thorough rebuttal, but whether slavery is in the interest of particular people--plantation owners--and whether as a system it is beneficial to the economic development of the nation are obviously two separate issues.
There a ton of people today who benefit from illegal aliens working for them as fruit pickers, farm labor, meat packers, gardeners, housecleaners, janitors, dishwashers, construction labor framing houses or hanging drywall... for less than American wages A these people bunch of 'em squawk like disturbed ducks if you talk about deportation or even e-verify.
But that does not remotely mean that importing these millions of illegal aliens is beneficial to America, "the American economy" or much less Americans. It merely means a bunch of people now have an economic interest in the illegal alien labor system. For America--our children's future, the nation's future--it's a disaster.
Slavery was even worse in terms of "lock-in" because the plantation owners actually owned the slaves. They were an asset, so an end to slavery system was not just going to hammer their income and income producing potential of their property, but a bunch of their "wealth" would up and walk off.
But that means nothing about whether slavery--the slave system--was good for America. In fact, with abolition ... a bunch of their owners wealth did up and walk off. Slavery was abolished and the American economy soared to being #1 in the world. Wow. Sure sounds critical.Replies: @Anonymous, @S
They would not have wanted to be slave traders or slaveholders. But the racist US-system did not allow them to make the other choice.
Most people barely acknowledge or pay for their own mistakes, much less that of people who lived and died long before them? Since American blacks on average are many times more wealthy than African blacks still living there, are they going to make reparations to the descendants of the victims of their own tribal oppressions? Why limit reparations to Americans?
Do any of the reparations mongers plan on compensating any of the crime victims of their own ancestors? (Not all have those, but no one mentions that.)
We don't live in a world where all that we now have magically dropped from the sky into our bank accounts and homes, due to our ancestors. Yes, a few who have wealthy parents benefit from that, but even then, over time, few living today are fat and happy Rockefellers. So why all the grousing?
It's just a naked scam as anyone can see. Places now with black governments are all poorer and have been, than the US. Per that evidence, as is painfully clear to everyone not scamming, there is no actual moral or economic argument to be made about slave reparations.
As we all know, people who always blame their current troubles on others are doomed to a life of misery and psychological dysfunction. It's bad enough to blame one's parents. But to blame the long dead ancestors of people no one alive knew is absurd.
But con artists and scammers often prefer the Big Lie, since the details and logic don't matter. I have yet to read of any Woke celebrity who has personally made "reparations" to individual Americans of African descent. Alex Baldwin? Bill & Hil? Bernie? AOC? Who?Replies: @216, @Dieter Kief, @S
I
Actually, this Biblical thought you refer to is central to Christianity and one of the results of the existence of the Old (rather unforgiving and tribal) and the New Testament. – so forgiveness instead of rage and vengeance has morphed into a structural (=founding) element of not only our juridical system but of our culture as a whole. –
II
But our capitalist/democratic system and our culture have – since roughly 1968 – been attacked as being one of the core reasons for – suppression as such. The postmodern/deconstructivist equation which is acknowledged by the media-mainstream and practically all of the academia now is: The (capitalist) system represents nothing but unjust power – ad must, therefore, be eradicated – including Christianity, which is an integral part of said system.
III
Which, as I stated in paragraph one above, is actually true: Christianity is indeed an integral part of our culture and our political system.
IV
So – the mainstream and the left have sided against the core of our system and our tradition. This is ironically no problem for lots of Silicon Valley and Wall Street protagonists, – because they – as the Masters of the Universe (Tom Wolfe) – act as if they’d be above religion, culture, and the constitution of the US for example. In their world-view, US religion, culture, and tradition altogether are just aspects of a regional (=backwards) “configuration”. Things they don’t need at all and oftentimes look at as nothing but outdated hindrances (or artifacts).
So on what will we spend the $200k each of those blacks owes us for the benefit of being born in in a fantastically better, more prosperous country? ... I'm assuming you are saying each will pay the US $200k, right, to help balance the scales and put them back where they would be if they had been born in Africa?Replies: @AnotherDad
Cloudbuster, think this through. Starting with jumping back to reality. Black Americans have rights just like any Americans. The current incentive for them to abandon American citizenship is zero, and unsurprisingly–because all this “oppression” stuff is nonsense–very few of them leave.
What will it say about all the crap the minoritarians have rained down upon us for 60 years–“racism!” “legacy of slavery”, “oppression”, “systemic racism”, etc.–when we offer $200K to young blacks to renounce and move back to Africa … and almost none of them do? Or all the shrieks and howls at this reparations offer itself?
Minoritarianism–minorities oppressed/virtuous, majorities (white gentiles) oppressive/evil; now the official establishment ideology, more important than trivial stuff like “equal justice under law” or even “rule of law” itself–is an end-to-end lie. A lie debunked by the actual behavior of … pretty much everyone in the world, immigrants, blacks, the whites who parrot it, even the Jews who have peddled it.
Demonstrating the absolute fraudulence of the entire minoritarian project is the critical PR task of patriots.
Instead, we get minority rule to milk the majority. It is a master-slave relationship, and we are the slaves.
Dave Pinsen has the right idea. Reparations must be tied to permanent physical separation. The idea is so simple and obvious that maybe it has some chance of making it into the public consciousness. It’s basically “Love it or leave it.”
Just to address the details briefly, I don’t see why this should involve giving away any land in North America. There’s plenty of land that can be purchased outside of the U.S. & Europe & the Western world.
RT [naturally] on academic wokistocracy in the UK and USA:
Whereas our government is presently printing trillions and trillions, and
whereas there has recently been much talk of reparations, and
whereas there is widespread belief in the incurability of systemic, anti-black racism, and
whereas there is urgency to quickly address reparations and systemic racism,
... let us immediately enact the following proposal …
… 200K to any black U.S. citizen, with these conditions:
1) must give up U.S. citizenship and any U.S. residency/visa status
2) move to a majority black country, with no option to ever return
… and these national conditions:
3) end affirmative action and all other existing, explicitly race-conscious governmental policies
4) require that all immigrants have to be of Western European heritage
You might say, “wait that’s too expensive!” But a trillion is a big number. With one trillion, you could pay 5 million people 200K. And Congress just created a 2 trillion dollar stimulus package, while seemingly every day, the Federal Reserve is announcing a new trillion dollar program. What’s a few more trillion on the heap?
With 8 trillion, you could pay all 40 million blacks to leave.
However, would they leave? Maybe not all at once, but after a few have left and got settled, then others would follow. But which countries would take them? We might need to incentivize those countries too.
How many would need to leave to make it worth it? If 50% left, would that be better? Should it just apply to those in their "fertility prime"? Perhaps, if past the "fertility prime", the reparations is just 100K?
In one way, it's a win just talking about it, as AnotherDad says:Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder
Because the USA is increasingly run on old-testament (jewish) precepts rather than new-testament (christian). Hence revenge for all slights (real or imagined) is preferred to peaceful accommodation, or even peaceful separation.
Is this a serious question? Are iSteve readers even becoming less literate? Really? Is anyone arguing that slavery did not benefit plantation owners? Because there are plenty of systems with grossly inefficient growth mechanisms that survive for a long time because they benefit the elite of that society. That the Southern elite wanted slavery actually says nothing about how beneficial slavery was to the economic development of the South as a whole — and certainly not remotely America as a whole. It’s interesting that at the start of the American Civil War both the North and South primarily used a mixture of British and American firearms. At the end of 4 years the massive Union military was almost entirely armed with high quality Northern developed and locally manufactured weapons, the South relied on imported European weapons and captured Northern weapons. It’s almost as if slavery was actually greatly injurious to the economic and industrial development of the South, yet strangely, and simultaneously, responsible for the great wealth of the non-slave portion of the country that defeated it. I actually do think at some deep level BLM protestors are indeed correct to pull down statues of men like Grant, as one must not look to closely at mid 19 Century American history in general. Such a close look would reveal how little slaves actually contributed to America, at such a great human price.
Come January mention of any of those countries will get you hauled up on hate speech charges.
I thought our debt was fully repaid in Obamaphones.
It was all about the Benjamins!!
"Baptist asserts that “almost half of the economic activity of the United States in 1836
derived directly or indirectly from cotton produced by… slaves” (2014, p. 322). As Olmstead
and Rhode show, this figure is an egregious overstatement, generated by double-counting
outputs, inputs, asset sales and financial transactions (2018, p. 13). Cotton production
accounted for about five percent of GDP at that time. Cotton dominated U.S. exports after
1820, but exports never exceeded seven percent of GDP during the antebellum period. True,
cotton textiles were important for U.S. industrialization, and New England mills used the same
slave-grown raw material as their competitors in Lancashire. But location within national
boundaries had little economic significance for this industry. As a bulky but lightweight
commodity, raw cotton travels easily, and transportation costs play little if any role in textiles
geography. The protective tariff – strongly opposed by the slave South – was of far greater
importance for the competitiveness of the antebellum industry (Harley 1992, 2001)."
"The preceding section suggests that if slavery had been abolished nationally at the time
of the Constitution, the Cotton South would have developed through family-scale farms like the
rest of the country, delivering as much or perhaps more cotton to the eager textile mills of
Lancashire, and building a more diverse and prosperous regional economy in the process."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZLLNGFiwtrjeza5oZwFQRG-J3MQdn1cP/viewReplies: @Corvinus
I am familiar with his argument, as you highlighted it before. Of course, there are competing theories, but in my estimation the sources I provided undercut Wright’s thesis.
Nonetheless…
https://journalofthecivilwarera.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Final-Rockman.pdf
and…
https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/History/Fall-2020-Slavery-and-Capitalism.pdf
“So….you failed completely to address why Canada, Australia, and New Zealand prospered without slavery, and most of Latin America — which had slavery in far vaster forms… didn’t?”
–Red herring. The assertion I countered was “America’s wealth was built on the slave labor of Black people”.
“Honestly, you seem very slow on the uptake — based directly on your bolded portions — on the idea that in the 19th Century ownership of people as a measurement of wealth actually mattered as a real factor in economic development”.
–Based on the sources, indeed. So, what specific statements in the bolded portions do you disagree with? What is your reasoning?
“So, to break it down to your comprehension level: a non-slave region with lots of factories and railroads could be on paper poorer than a slave region with lots of slaves…the fact this is so should be a deep lesson in humility for economists and economic historians.”
–On what basis do you believe these authors neglected to take into account your objection?
“Free those slaves with a stoke of a pen, and suddenly that wealth disappears…”
–So how does this statement directly fit with the thesis offered?
“It seems risible, by the way, to any thinking man, that Yankee trading ships, roaming the oceans even before the United States was formed, would not have found other cheap sources of cotton for Northern factories.”
–During the colonial period, a symbiotic economic relationship developed between the regions, so northern merchants focused on obtaining southern cotton. Recall that cotton was considered a luxury good prior to the English Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s, and that northern factories for textiles did not develop in earnest until the early 1800’s.
“What I think cute, but ironic, and also not to a small extent pathetic, is anyone defending slavery reparations droning on about the importance of King Cotton with the earnestness of a Mississippi plantation owner circa 1857”
–Strawman. I did not directly nor indirectly defend slavery reparations in my post.
“My opinion is anyone asserting slavery is responsible for American growth is a provincial rube ignorant of global history, and should study said subject with much more diligence…but if you are merely a propagandist.”
–You do realize that your ad hominems are not arguments, right? So, please offer your cogent rebuttal to the sources I provided. Otherwise, you have done nothing to refute the ideas presented by the authors I cited.
If you want to make an argument that a significant portion of the wealth of the pre-industrial United States was generated by the work (and oppression) of slaves, that argument, although fairly shaky, has more substance. Implying -- which is indeed what is being done when claiming slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States -- the effects of slavery are equivalent to industrialization, is risible and ludicrous. The fact is the world was a lot more unequal in the year 1900 than 1800, economically, and that precisely had to do with unequal distribution of technological advancement and industrialization across the world in various societies. I love farming, but the United States rose to world power based on its enormous industrial capability, not its ability to grow cash crops.
Slave-based economies were actually a serious disadvantage in an industrializing world, and again, this has never been hidden from view -- it was literally recognized at the time. What Australia, and the United Kingdom, and Canada share with the United States -- besides being founded or inhabited by similar cultural groups during crucial development times -- to achieve similar levels of per capita development is not slavery. What they do share is a roughly similar timeline of industrialization.Replies: @S, @Corvinus
Did you offer them a cool drink,seeing as they were hot?
Replies: @Fluesterwitz
Maybe they should change university to diversity?
In a nutshell: use eminent domain to purchase land for an African American homeland in the states with the largest black % of their populations now, like Mississippi and Alabama. Then offer generous reparations to any African American who renounces his American citizenship and moves there.
Any African American who declines reparations and decides to stay in the U.S. could do so, but would be treated like any other American: no affirmative action, no disparate impact, no special dispensation by local authorities to commit crimes without being arrested by the police, etc.
According to the estimate here, the net fiscal impact of African Americans (taxes paid minus government resources consumed) was -481 billion dollars per year in 2018, or about -$10,200 per person. Over a lifetime, that would mean the average African American consumes about $750k more in government resources than he or she pays in taxes. If that's true, then spending anything less than the present value of that on reparations and eminent domain would be a bargain (presumably, the African Americans who turned down reparations and decided to stay in the U.S. would be net fiscal contributors, on average).Replies: @216, @AnotherDad, @Corvinus, @MBlanc46, @Chris Mallory, @anon
No. The yankees fought to free them then worked for desegregation. Move the blacks north. Massachusetts would be a perfect homeland for 40 million blacks. Don’t let any of the current residents move out either.
What will it say about all the crap the minoritarians have rained down upon us for 60 years--"racism!" "legacy of slavery", "oppression", "systemic racism", etc.--when we offer $200K to young blacks to renounce and move back to Africa ... and almost none of them do? Or all the shrieks and howls at this reparations offer itself?
Minoritarianism--minorities oppressed/virtuous, majorities (white gentiles) oppressive/evil; now the official establishment ideology, more important than trivial stuff like "equal justice under law" or even "rule of law" itself--is an end-to-end lie. A lie debunked by the actual behavior of ... pretty much everyone in the world, immigrants, blacks, the whites who parrot it, even the Jews who have peddled it.
Demonstrating the absolute fraudulence of the entire minoritarian project is the critical PR task of patriots.Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Ben tillman
It was a joke. Lighten up, Francis.
You are right, but I’d like to talk about the slaves who are seldom brought into the conversation.
The slaves who had it the worst were those who were drafted into the armed forces of the United States. Tally the number of dead and compare it to any ludicrously exaggerated death toll a Lefty ascribes to slavery in this country.
Another recently fabricated narrative is that the GI Bill was an example of systemic racism in that blacks allegedly got shafted in regard to the program’s benefits, and that this is a big part of the current wealth difference. But what did they do to earn those benefits?
Of more than 400,000 dead US servicemen, a grand total of 708 were black.
LOL. Is this your sacrificial lamb, Mr. Sailer?
Slaves are long-lived capital assets which reproduce themselves. They appreciated with plantation expansion, depreciated with age, and “vanished” via capital loss (e.g. death, disability, or escape). There was an active secondary market for slaves between plantations, and slaves trained in the industrial arts (called artisan slaves) were contracted out for services rendered.
The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/civil-war-cotton-capitalism-114776https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/05/03/the-clear-connection-between-slavery-and-american-capitalism/#64ba06407bd3http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-kingReplies: @Anonymous, @syonredux, @Grahamsno(G64), @Ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @Jester... or jester
Any analysis that doesn’t address opportunity cost is worthless.
Excellent comment. Sentences four, five, and six really hit the nail on the head.
A man can generate about 1/10 HP. Water mills, wind mills, horses, oxen and even primitive steam engines can easily generate much more power.
A society with even minor technological advances would easily out compete human driven labour since the power gain on exploiting human labour is so low while the power gain burning coal or oil is substantially higher.
The only place where human ability exceeds machines is in intellectual creativity. The power used by a typical human brain is less than the power used to run the fan in a server cabinet.
The country that succeeds in generating intellectual creativity at close to the same energy draw as the human brain will dominate the world.
Will it?
Blacks in the West have an almost pathological need to be surrounded by urban squalor, and a pathological aversion to rural areas and nature.
So you see, all inner-city armed robbery, every break-in, every riot with looting - it's all reparations. But what if you've looted everything within reach?
Black activists have already identified the problem, and found the solution. Call it the Willie Sutton strategy - to get the money, go where the whites are. The expensive shopping districts, and ESPECIALLY the suburbs.
In a related story, Michigan's Leftist governor won't let go of her pet program - some sort of direct public transportation that goes from inner city Detroit into wealthy Ann Arbor. Ballot initiatives have failed miserably - there's nothing Democrat strategists hate more than needing the approval of voters. There's got to be a way!Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
Of course. She’s a Michigan State alum, and any opportunity to stick it to U of M is the most important thing.
Geography also works in her favor since East Lansing is much farther from Detroit.
Hadn't thought of that influencing the recent allegations that she is preventing U of M from joining a proposed 6 team Big 10 football season, but it certainly could be a factor. I just figured that she is a giant c$!t and leave it at that.
Didn't think about the MSU alum vs. UM hate, but you nailed that one; it has divided residents and indeed families for a century, that I know of.Replies: @Anonymous
“Any analysis that doesn’t address opportunity cost is worthless.”
How are you certain the sources I listed do not address this concept in their work other than stating it? See, you are going to have to do better. Offer up your own reasoned explanation to back up your assertion.
I know what I am asking is mentally taxing for you, but you do have all day to figure out what you want to say.
The slaves who had it the worst were those who were drafted into the armed forces of the United States. Tally the number of dead and compare it to any ludicrously exaggerated death toll a Lefty ascribes to slavery in this country.
Another recently fabricated narrative is that the GI Bill was an example of systemic racism in that blacks allegedly got shafted in regard to the program’s benefits, and that this is a big part of the current wealth difference. But what did they do to earn those benefits?
Of more than 400,000 dead US servicemen, a grand total of 708 were black.Replies: @Corvinus
“Of more than 400,000 dead US servicemen, a grand total of 708 were black.”
And why is that? Could it be that they were segregated and generally prohibited from serving in the front lines?
“But what did they do to earn those benefits?”
Of course, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that more than 2.5 million African American men registered for the draft, and African American women volunteered in large numbers. When combined with black women enlisted into Women’s Army Corps, more than one million African Americans served the military.
Are you this obtuse in real life, or are you playing an online character?
That's what the US would be like without past slavery. Canada with 10 times the people.Replies: @AnotherDad, @syonredux, @Wilkey, @Buffalo Joe, @Antonius
Why on earth would anyone credit the modern savage and his antecedents with anything. I would sooner give Seabiscuit et al reparations and credit for helping build the nation. Ek is wragtag gatvol!
Leaning towards a paid propagandist for you. The crux of the issue of Mr. Steve Sailer’s post — besides it being funny — is that it is a common belief the United States owes black Americans reparations because black slaves greatly contributed to generating the wealth of America. You agree with the supporting argument for reparations, and attempt to buttress it. Yet the United States of 1900 was far wealthier, per capita, than the United States of year 1800. That was because of technological advancement and industrialization, which the institution of slavery (and individual slaves themselves) contributed very little to. In fact, it was noted by serious observers by the 1850s that the American South was noticably lagging behind the American North in economic development, to include of course the non-planter white population (By 1860 slaves were roughly 13 – 14 percent of the total American population, but perhaps 40 percent of the population across all the states that joined the Confederacy.)
If you want to make an argument that a significant portion of the wealth of the pre-industrial United States was generated by the work (and oppression) of slaves, that argument, although fairly shaky, has more substance. Implying — which is indeed what is being done when claiming slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States — the effects of slavery are equivalent to industrialization, is risible and ludicrous. The fact is the world was a lot more unequal in the year 1900 than 1800, economically, and that precisely had to do with unequal distribution of technological advancement and industrialization across the world in various societies. I love farming, but the United States rose to world power based on its enormous industrial capability, not its ability to grow cash crops.
Slave-based economies were actually a serious disadvantage in an industrializing world, and again, this has never been hidden from view — it was literally recognized at the time. What Australia, and the United Kingdom, and Canada share with the United States — besides being founded or inhabited by similar cultural groups during crucial development times — to achieve similar levels of per capita development is not slavery. What they do share is a roughly similar timeline of industrialization.
‘..a question of dollars and cents..’I tend to agree with the US economist and Lincoln economic adviser, Henry Charles Carey, and his 1853 observation that the North's so called 'cheap labor'/'mass immigration' system was simply the 'slave trade of the last century, but on a grander scale'...ie that the commerce oriented North had simply monetized chattel slavery and it's trade, that is distilled it to it's financial essence, whilst maximizing profits, and that it's system too was based on the systematic theft of labor, the financial essence of slavery.
The guns were turned upon the wrong people in that damnable war.
https://www.unz.com/proberts/the-bankers-blood-money-secession-and-invasion/#comment-4068778Replies: @Anonymous
What is it with the anony's here who make this charge but cannot even offer one iota of evidence?
The crux of the issue of Mr. Steve Sailer’s post — besides it being funny — is that it is a common belief the United States owes black Americans reparations because black slaves greatly contributed to generating the wealth of America.
"You agree with the supporting argument for reparations, and attempt to buttress it."
Once again, you are offering a strawman. I never directly nor indirectly made this assertion.
"Yet the United States of 1900 was far wealthier, per capita, than the United States of year 1800. That was because of technological advancement and industrialization, which the institution of slavery (and individual slaves themselves) contributed very little to."
The sources I provided state otherwise. Again, what specifically from the citations do you object to? Show your work.
"In fact, it was noted by serious observers by the 1850s that the American South was noticably lagging behind the American North in economic development..."
You mean like Hinton Helper?
"If you want to make an argument that a significant portion of the wealth of the pre-industrial United States was generated by the work (and oppression) of slaves, that argument, although fairly shaky, has more substance."
According to Who/Whom?
"Implying — which is indeed what is being done when claiming slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States — the effects of slavery are equivalent to industrialization, is risible and ludicrous."
That is another strawman on your part.Replies: @Anonymous, @res
The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery. Lottery winners. Their ancestors suffered, but they reap the reward of living in a (previously) white run nation with white prosperity and white rule-of-law.
If blacks want reparations for slavery, they need to give up the huge benefit that they've gotten from slavery--US citizenship.
I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.
Separation is far preferable to any of this special treatment and especially all the minoritarian whining and lying.
But the beauty of advancing "separation" is that just saying it will induce wailing and gnashing of teeth. "Separation" simply debunks the entire minoritarian narrative. If you're oppressed why don't you want to split?Replies: @Cato, @Cloudbuster, @B36, @ziggurat, @Anonymous, @William Badwhite
Did their ancestors suffer? African workers and their families received food, shelter, medical care, cradle-to-grave social security, a degree of education and technical training (some quite a lot, actually). They got to live under the protective umbrella of White governance, with the security, stability, and rule of law that comes with it, and that the rest of the world is still clamoring to get a piece of.
How did the rest of humanity live at the time? How did standards of living, life spans, and fertility compare? What were the life prospects of the average African then?
Geography also works in her favor since East Lansing is much farther from Detroit.Replies: @Anonymous, @Ron Mexico, @Anon7
Isteve readers should support this. Force your adversary to live up to their own “principles.”
LOL. Is this your sacrificial lamb, Mr. Sailer?
Slaves are long-lived capital assets which reproduce themselves. They appreciated with plantation expansion, depreciated with age, and “vanished” via capital loss (e.g. death, disability, or escape). There was an active secondary market for slaves between plantations, and slaves trained in the industrial arts (called artisan slaves) were contracted out for services rendered.
The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/civil-war-cotton-capitalism-114776https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/05/03/the-clear-connection-between-slavery-and-american-capitalism/#64ba06407bd3http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-kingReplies: @Anonymous, @syonredux, @Grahamsno(G64), @Ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @Jester... or jester
LOL — “King Cotton” Corny
It’s funny to see all the little apparatchiks of the latest minoritarian fantasy–1619! America built on slavery!–now babbling like Mississippi plantation owners.
But guess what Corny. The King Cotton boys proved wrong.
Cotton had been about 5% of the US economy. Important, but hardly “the economy”. It was a larger share–10%ish–of investment capital. But most of the surplus generated went into more land and slaves–i.e. a faster increase of the US black population–and fancy plantation homes and consumption.
Corny, do you even realize what a statement like:
means? It means that the profits of slavery went into breeding more blacks. Not actual capital accumulation for the US at all. Slavery’s profits resulted in black bodies around today. Black–legacy black–Americans are the slavery’s big result, not real economic growth.
The northern economy turned out not to be dependent on cotton. The North prevailed in the War without even being stretched economically.
European cotton mills had an immediate crisis, kicking off a recession … while the British figured out where else they could grow cotton. “Oh, how about Egypt?” And more exported from India. And probably a bunch of other places i don’t know about.
US slavery was so critical that shutting it down was a speed bump in the world economy, while the US took off in the next generation to become the leading economy in world, the leading industrial power and a world power.
~~
Again, this nonsense doesn’t even rise to the level of “interesting”. This is one of histories counterfactuals where we actually have comparable factuals–Canada, Australia. The US was much, much, much better naturally endowed than those nations and … they don’t suck.
We also have the “factual” that we killed slavery off … and the world didn’t end. In fact, the South with blacks picking cotton was a continual laggard–a backwater–while the north took off.
The US would be a richer nation today if the South had developed via yeoman farmers–owning and cultivating their own land. Better, more even, organic growth. Not to say it would have been like the north, malaria would have found it’s way in even without blacks and before window and door screens and DDT and chloroquine and AC the South wasn’t going be as habitable for a white man as the North. But the South would have have been much better with more even, complete and stable development.
No slavery was a massive screwup, false path, wrong turn. Slavery’s result wasn’t wildly improved growth, but rather a bunch of blacks around… who aren’t exactly engines of economic progress.
When you blow something up … and the world rolls on, and actually gets better! … that’s kind of a hint.
To the contrary, the profits of slavery went into the pockets of the slaveholder, the cotton merchant, and the industrialist who made textiles. The capital accumulation for the U.S. was in terms of the wealth produced by the slaveholder, the productivity of slaves, and the profits of the cotton trade.Replies: @syonredux
The plain fact is American blacks are the big beneficiaries of slavery. Lottery winners. Their ancestors suffered, but they reap the reward of living in a (previously) white run nation with white prosperity and white rule-of-law.
If blacks want reparations for slavery, they need to give up the huge benefit that they've gotten from slavery--US citizenship.
I think say $200K for young black man or woman in their fertility prime to renounce their citizenship and move back to Africa (taking any children with them) would be a fair deal. $200K would go a long way to get you up and running. But not opposed to a black nation here either.
Separation is far preferable to any of this special treatment and especially all the minoritarian whining and lying.
But the beauty of advancing "separation" is that just saying it will induce wailing and gnashing of teeth. "Separation" simply debunks the entire minoritarian narrative. If you're oppressed why don't you want to split?Replies: @Cato, @Cloudbuster, @B36, @ziggurat, @Anonymous, @William Badwhite
It has to be all of them or this never ends. All or none. If all, it needs to be followed by complete and permanent separation.
In Liberia.
Sure we will miss their contributions to math and science, but we've held them back long enough.
Fair is Fair.Replies: @Yngvar
Liberia is constitutionally racist. As Wiki lays bare:
I can’t imagine any American black wanting to move to another deeply racist nation. They’ll stay.
What will it say about all the crap the minoritarians have rained down upon us for 60 years--"racism!" "legacy of slavery", "oppression", "systemic racism", etc.--when we offer $200K to young blacks to renounce and move back to Africa ... and almost none of them do? Or all the shrieks and howls at this reparations offer itself?
Minoritarianism--minorities oppressed/virtuous, majorities (white gentiles) oppressive/evil; now the official establishment ideology, more important than trivial stuff like "equal justice under law" or even "rule of law" itself--is an end-to-end lie. A lie debunked by the actual behavior of ... pretty much everyone in the world, immigrants, blacks, the whites who parrot it, even the Jews who have peddled it.
Demonstrating the absolute fraudulence of the entire minoritarian project is the critical PR task of patriots.Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Ben tillman
And, of course, the logical and morally correct solution to the “plight” of minority groups is *autonomy* for them and for the majority in separate territories.
Instead, we get minority rule to milk the majority. It is a master-slave relationship, and we are the slaves.
https://youtu.be/tpAOwJvTOioReplies: @William Badwhite
I agreed with the part where she said “Romney sucks”!
How did the sources you provided “undercut” his thesis?
His thesis was that exports were only 7% of US GDP.
And the sources you keep going on about are simply stating that the textile industry was very large. But one of your sources offhandedly stated that cotton wasn’t even as big as wheat within the internal economy of the USA. How many slaves were involved in the wheat production of the time?
An interesting tidbit in your quotes was the statement that 1/5 of all workers in Britain were involved in some way or other in the textile industry. How large was that a percentage of Britain’s GDP at the time? And what was Britain’s GDP in relation to the USA’s at the time?
And then they go on and on about exports blah blah blah, capitalism blah blah blah. Blah blah blah!
The point of the OP was that exports were a small part of the USA (and other countries’) GDP.
Please refute this point for us from your quotes. Show how your quotes undercut the point.
Can you explain your reasoning about “undercutting” his point? I am genuinely not getting your attitude.
Slave industries were important for cash crops – for export. But exports were not all that important for the wealth of the USA is the point. Please refute this point.
Yeah, i’m not too bright … and pretty excited about my (or Dave’s or anyone else’s similar) reparations idea. I want to sell, sell, sell … it’s gonna be great. Great i tell ya!
This is where i disagree–with a number of folks here.
The point of this sort of “reparations with separation” or any of the other “separation” ideas is that merely proposing them and stoking the outrage precisely gives away the minoritarian game.
The plain fact is the minoritarians are parasitic upon whites. (Which to be clear does not mean there aren’t talented minorities doing real work and contributing.) Minorities keep demanding to come toward whites–immigration, integration of your school, country club, neighborhood, nations … while endlessly whining.
Saying “We can solve your ‘oppression’ problem, we’ll just separate” unmasks the game. It is absolutely critical that conservatives, patriots, do precisely this. Until we blow up their sleazy narrative the minoritarians will keep burying us in bucket after bucket of their sad sack “oppression” shit.
That’s utter bilge. Again, look at the data:
http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2016/12/capitalism-and-slavery-debate-is-not.html
Grahamsno, you need better parsing of the issue.
Anon[277] has already done the thorough rebuttal, but whether slavery is in the interest of particular people–plantation owners–and whether as a system it is beneficial to the economic development of the nation are obviously two separate issues.
There a ton of people today who benefit from illegal aliens working for them as fruit pickers, farm labor, meat packers, gardeners, housecleaners, janitors, dishwashers, construction labor framing houses or hanging drywall… for less than American wages A these people bunch of ’em squawk like disturbed ducks if you talk about deportation or even e-verify.
But that does not remotely mean that importing these millions of illegal aliens is beneficial to America, “the American economy” or much less Americans. It merely means a bunch of people now have an economic interest in the illegal alien labor system. For America–our children’s future, the nation’s future–it’s a disaster.
Slavery was even worse in terms of “lock-in” because the plantation owners actually owned the slaves. They were an asset, so an end to slavery system was not just going to hammer their income and income producing potential of their property, but a bunch of their “wealth” would up and walk off.
But that means nothing about whether slavery–the slave system–was good for America. In fact, with abolition … a bunch of their owners wealth did up and walk off. Slavery was abolished and the American economy soared to being #1 in the world. Wow. Sure sounds critical.
The Africans didn’t for the most part “up and walk off” after the civil war. Many stayed and continued working on the farms with the Whites.
Or, would you rather not have been born at all? It’s not like there is a set number of black souls waiting in the wings for their cue to enter stage right whether the play is being staged in Africa or America.
For every single American descendant of a slave there would be no play at all. No gleam of light between two eternities of darkness for them. Only darkness. They would never have existed.
Reparations for blacks is essentially reparations for the unfortunate natural fact that they are black.
LOL. Is this your sacrificial lamb, Mr. Sailer?
Slaves are long-lived capital assets which reproduce themselves. They appreciated with plantation expansion, depreciated with age, and “vanished” via capital loss (e.g. death, disability, or escape). There was an active secondary market for slaves between plantations, and slaves trained in the industrial arts (called artisan slaves) were contracted out for services rendered.
The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/civil-war-cotton-capitalism-114776https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/05/03/the-clear-connection-between-slavery-and-american-capitalism/#64ba06407bd3http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-kingReplies: @Anonymous, @syonredux, @Grahamsno(G64), @Ben tillman, @AnotherDad, @Jester... or jester
The question is whether you’re a paid smart ideologue or you’re a middling, innumerate simpleton who’s appealing to whatever “authority” du jour is most fashionable. An unsure, uninformed person might fall for that, and many most certainly do, but the fact that you keep pitching more and more indefensible positions speaks volumes to what you really are.
For anyone needing to refresh their knowledge and shield themselves from Corvinus’ drivel, here’s a concise economic assessment of slavery with meaningful numbers.
http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2018/06/was-slavery-central-to-american.html
The topic has been exhaustively researched, way more than it actually should, and you need some serious mental gymnastics to come to a different conclusion.
The way that you are touting Professor Hansen?
Most people barely acknowledge or pay for their own mistakes, much less that of people who lived and died long before them? Since American blacks on average are many times more wealthy than African blacks still living there, are they going to make reparations to the descendants of the victims of their own tribal oppressions? Why limit reparations to Americans?
Do any of the reparations mongers plan on compensating any of the crime victims of their own ancestors? (Not all have those, but no one mentions that.)
We don't live in a world where all that we now have magically dropped from the sky into our bank accounts and homes, due to our ancestors. Yes, a few who have wealthy parents benefit from that, but even then, over time, few living today are fat and happy Rockefellers. So why all the grousing?
It's just a naked scam as anyone can see. Places now with black governments are all poorer and have been, than the US. Per that evidence, as is painfully clear to everyone not scamming, there is no actual moral or economic argument to be made about slave reparations.
As we all know, people who always blame their current troubles on others are doomed to a life of misery and psychological dysfunction. It's bad enough to blame one's parents. But to blame the long dead ancestors of people no one alive knew is absurd.
But con artists and scammers often prefer the Big Lie, since the details and logic don't matter. I have yet to read of any Woke celebrity who has personally made "reparations" to individual Americans of African descent. Alex Baldwin? Bill & Hil? Bernie? AOC? Who?Replies: @216, @Dieter Kief, @S
Speaking of reparations..
Since 1945 the citizens of Okinawa, Japan have been opressed by Black rapists amongst the US occupation troops based there.
In the summer of 1945 three Black US marines whom had made it a habit of coming to a particular Okiniwa village to rape its women with impunity were ambushed and killed. The formerly powerless villagers had recruited two unsurrendered and armed Japanese soldiers from the surrounding jungle to do the deed.
The Black marines lifeless corpses were secretly dumped by the villagers in a cave known since by the locals in memorium as ‘the cave of the dark skinned boys’.
Fifty years later, and in the same tradition as the earlier 1945 incident, three Black serviceman raped a twelve year old Okiniwa girl. Tried and convicted, each was given approximately seven years in a no nonsense Japanese prison.
The Black serviceman’s families accusations of ‘discrimination’ by the Japanese were given short shrift, and ultimately withdrawn. Instead, these Black rapists families were ordered by the Japanese to pay reparations to the Japanese family of the little girl.
As a postscript, one of the three rapists after their release in 2003 complained the Japanese prison labor he performed was like slavery.
Another one, who claimed he only ‘pretended’ to take part in the rape, in 2006 raped a young 22 year old college woman he’d had a past passing acquainship with, then strangled her, before committing suicide.
The young woman, Lauren Cooper, is pictured below.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Okinawa_rape_incident
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Katsuyama_killing_incident
No one, and I mean NO ONE, actually believes this crap. Just a scam, and a scam about to go seriously a cropper, as the Economy continues to deteriorate.Replies: @Anonymous
.
The economy is improving.
The Bond market is a catastrophe.
Every single last State Government in the entire USA is facing a budget shortfall for next year, averaging 29%.
Current official unemployment rat is 14.7%, real rate near 30%.
1 million person exodus from NYC, hundreds of thousands from San Fransisco....etc
Hundreds of thousands of businesses destroyed, and the downstream effect of their failure will cause hundreds of thousands more to fail.
Spot food shortages already occurring, more serious to follow.
Tourism destroyed, Higher Education about to follow in a major way.
But "the Economy is improving".
Congratulations, you just won Grand Prize in the Galactic Fucktard Contest.Replies: @Anonymous
Anon[277] has already done the thorough rebuttal, but whether slavery is in the interest of particular people--plantation owners--and whether as a system it is beneficial to the economic development of the nation are obviously two separate issues.
There a ton of people today who benefit from illegal aliens working for them as fruit pickers, farm labor, meat packers, gardeners, housecleaners, janitors, dishwashers, construction labor framing houses or hanging drywall... for less than American wages A these people bunch of 'em squawk like disturbed ducks if you talk about deportation or even e-verify.
But that does not remotely mean that importing these millions of illegal aliens is beneficial to America, "the American economy" or much less Americans. It merely means a bunch of people now have an economic interest in the illegal alien labor system. For America--our children's future, the nation's future--it's a disaster.
Slavery was even worse in terms of "lock-in" because the plantation owners actually owned the slaves. They were an asset, so an end to slavery system was not just going to hammer their income and income producing potential of their property, but a bunch of their "wealth" would up and walk off.
But that means nothing about whether slavery--the slave system--was good for America. In fact, with abolition ... a bunch of their owners wealth did up and walk off. Slavery was abolished and the American economy soared to being #1 in the world. Wow. Sure sounds critical.Replies: @Anonymous, @S
Not really. The farm owners could just pay for wage labor and save on the costs of medical care and cradle-to-grave social security. They could also fire poor performers at will.
The Africans didn’t for the most part “up and walk off” after the civil war. Many stayed and continued working on the farms with the Whites.
For anyone needing to refresh their knowledge and shield themselves from Corvinus' drivel, here's a concise economic assessment of slavery with meaningful numbers.
http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2018/06/was-slavery-central-to-american.html
The topic has been exhaustively researched, way more than it actually should, and you need some serious mental gymnastics to come to a different conclusion.Replies: @syonredux, @Corvinus
I can never decide whether Corvinus is a parody account or monumentally stupid. For example, take this choice sample of Corvinus’ oeuvre:
Corvinus does not understand how percentages work……
I lean towards the paid provocateur explanation myself. Corvinus currently has 11,729 Comments with 1,775,300 Words. That is an immense amount of work to devote to a parody.
If you want to make an argument that a significant portion of the wealth of the pre-industrial United States was generated by the work (and oppression) of slaves, that argument, although fairly shaky, has more substance. Implying -- which is indeed what is being done when claiming slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States -- the effects of slavery are equivalent to industrialization, is risible and ludicrous. The fact is the world was a lot more unequal in the year 1900 than 1800, economically, and that precisely had to do with unequal distribution of technological advancement and industrialization across the world in various societies. I love farming, but the United States rose to world power based on its enormous industrial capability, not its ability to grow cash crops.
Slave-based economies were actually a serious disadvantage in an industrializing world, and again, this has never been hidden from view -- it was literally recognized at the time. What Australia, and the United Kingdom, and Canada share with the United States -- besides being founded or inhabited by similar cultural groups during crucial development times -- to achieve similar levels of per capita development is not slavery. What they do share is a roughly similar timeline of industrialization.Replies: @S, @Corvinus
The financial representative of the Lincoln administration in London during the critical war year of 1863, Robert Walker, made the following economic calculations below while in that city. Taking multiple variables into account, he compared wage slave (so called ‘cheap labor’) dependent Massachusetts, with chattel slave dependendent South Carolina, and concluded Mass’s system was four to one more efficient, productive, and profitable, than South Carolina’s.
Eliza Andrews, whose family had been one of the self described ‘privileged 4000’ families who ruled over the South thru 1865, and as an adult had lived through the war in Georgia, says in words what Walker had said in numbers with his London economic calculations.
‘..a question of dollars and cents..’
I tend to agree with the US economist and Lincoln economic adviser, Henry Charles Carey, and his 1853 observation that the North’s so called ‘cheap labor’/’mass immigration’ system was simply the ‘slave trade of the last century, but on a grander scale’…ie that the commerce oriented North had simply monetized chattel slavery and it’s trade, that is distilled it to it’s financial essence, whilst maximizing profits, and that it’s system too was based on the systematic theft of labor, the financial essence of slavery.
The guns were turned upon the wrong people in that damnable war.
https://www.unz.com/proberts/the-bankers-blood-money-secession-and-invasion/#comment-4068778
Anon[277] has already done the thorough rebuttal, but whether slavery is in the interest of particular people--plantation owners--and whether as a system it is beneficial to the economic development of the nation are obviously two separate issues.
There a ton of people today who benefit from illegal aliens working for them as fruit pickers, farm labor, meat packers, gardeners, housecleaners, janitors, dishwashers, construction labor framing houses or hanging drywall... for less than American wages A these people bunch of 'em squawk like disturbed ducks if you talk about deportation or even e-verify.
But that does not remotely mean that importing these millions of illegal aliens is beneficial to America, "the American economy" or much less Americans. It merely means a bunch of people now have an economic interest in the illegal alien labor system. For America--our children's future, the nation's future--it's a disaster.
Slavery was even worse in terms of "lock-in" because the plantation owners actually owned the slaves. They were an asset, so an end to slavery system was not just going to hammer their income and income producing potential of their property, but a bunch of their "wealth" would up and walk off.
But that means nothing about whether slavery--the slave system--was good for America. In fact, with abolition ... a bunch of their owners wealth did up and walk off. Slavery was abolished and the American economy soared to being #1 in the world. Wow. Sure sounds critical.Replies: @Anonymous, @S
Not coincidentally, the very same sorts who profited from chattel slavery and it’s trade, and for the very same reason…anything, but anything, than pay the prevailing real time local costs of labor, more often than not, to their very own people.
If you want to make an argument that a significant portion of the wealth of the pre-industrial United States was generated by the work (and oppression) of slaves, that argument, although fairly shaky, has more substance. Implying -- which is indeed what is being done when claiming slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States -- the effects of slavery are equivalent to industrialization, is risible and ludicrous. The fact is the world was a lot more unequal in the year 1900 than 1800, economically, and that precisely had to do with unequal distribution of technological advancement and industrialization across the world in various societies. I love farming, but the United States rose to world power based on its enormous industrial capability, not its ability to grow cash crops.
Slave-based economies were actually a serious disadvantage in an industrializing world, and again, this has never been hidden from view -- it was literally recognized at the time. What Australia, and the United Kingdom, and Canada share with the United States -- besides being founded or inhabited by similar cultural groups during crucial development times -- to achieve similar levels of per capita development is not slavery. What they do share is a roughly similar timeline of industrialization.Replies: @S, @Corvinus
“Leaning towards a paid propagandist for you.”
What is it with the anony’s here who make this charge but cannot even offer one iota of evidence?
The crux of the issue of Mr. Steve Sailer’s post — besides it being funny — is that it is a common belief the United States owes black Americans reparations because black slaves greatly contributed to generating the wealth of America.
“You agree with the supporting argument for reparations, and attempt to buttress it.”
Once again, you are offering a strawman. I never directly nor indirectly made this assertion.
“Yet the United States of 1900 was far wealthier, per capita, than the United States of year 1800. That was because of technological advancement and industrialization, which the institution of slavery (and individual slaves themselves) contributed very little to.”
The sources I provided state otherwise. Again, what specifically from the citations do you object to? Show your work.
“In fact, it was noted by serious observers by the 1850s that the American South was noticably lagging behind the American North in economic development…”
You mean like Hinton Helper?
“If you want to make an argument that a significant portion of the wealth of the pre-industrial United States was generated by the work (and oppression) of slaves, that argument, although fairly shaky, has more substance.”
According to Who/Whom?
“Implying — which is indeed what is being done when claiming slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States — the effects of slavery are equivalent to industrialization, is risible and ludicrous.”
That is another strawman on your part.
Do the work.
I don't need to cite common knowledge in American history. Your sources do not indicate slaves contributed greatly to the industrialization of the United States, which indeed is an extraordinary claim requiring proof.
Your claim is direct: slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States. My claim is very direct: industrialization is the overwhelming cause of the wealth of the United States, and slavery contributed very little to that process, but actually hindered it.Replies: @Corvinus
For anyone needing to refresh their knowledge and shield themselves from Corvinus' drivel, here's a concise economic assessment of slavery with meaningful numbers.
http://bradleyahansen.blogspot.com/2018/06/was-slavery-central-to-american.html
The topic has been exhaustively researched, way more than it actually should, and you need some serious mental gymnastics to come to a different conclusion.Replies: @syonredux, @Corvinus
“The question is whether you’re a paid smart ideologue or you’re a middling, innumerate simpleton who’s appealing to whatever “authority” du jour is most fashionable.”
The way that you are touting Professor Hansen?
“It means that the profits of slavery went into breeding more blacks. Not actual capital accumulation for the US at all.”
To the contrary, the profits of slavery went into the pockets of the slaveholder, the cotton merchant, and the industrialist who made textiles. The capital accumulation for the U.S. was in terms of the wealth produced by the slaveholder, the productivity of slaves, and the profits of the cotton trade.
What is it with the anony's here who make this charge but cannot even offer one iota of evidence?
The crux of the issue of Mr. Steve Sailer’s post — besides it being funny — is that it is a common belief the United States owes black Americans reparations because black slaves greatly contributed to generating the wealth of America.
"You agree with the supporting argument for reparations, and attempt to buttress it."
Once again, you are offering a strawman. I never directly nor indirectly made this assertion.
"Yet the United States of 1900 was far wealthier, per capita, than the United States of year 1800. That was because of technological advancement and industrialization, which the institution of slavery (and individual slaves themselves) contributed very little to."
The sources I provided state otherwise. Again, what specifically from the citations do you object to? Show your work.
"In fact, it was noted by serious observers by the 1850s that the American South was noticably lagging behind the American North in economic development..."
You mean like Hinton Helper?
"If you want to make an argument that a significant portion of the wealth of the pre-industrial United States was generated by the work (and oppression) of slaves, that argument, although fairly shaky, has more substance."
According to Who/Whom?
"Implying — which is indeed what is being done when claiming slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States — the effects of slavery are equivalent to industrialization, is risible and ludicrous."
That is another strawman on your part.Replies: @Anonymous, @res
Do the work, Mr. (or Mrs.) Corvinus.
Do the work.
I don’t need to cite common knowledge in American history. Your sources do not indicate slaves contributed greatly to the industrialization of the United States, which indeed is an extraordinary claim requiring proof.
Your claim is direct: slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States. My claim is very direct: industrialization is the overwhelming cause of the wealth of the United States, and slavery contributed very little to that process, but actually hindered it.
I did not realize that submitting links that support the thesis** neglects to constitute work in your reality.
"Your claim is direct: slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States."
Actually, the claim made by historians in the economic realm, and one I agree with, is what I explicitly stated --> **The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.
"Your sources do not indicate slaves contributed greatly to the industrialization of the United States, which indeed is an extraordinary claim requiring proof."
Actually, in case you missed it, there is a university course that ALL of the materials found in this thread and that addresses the claim, which indeed is extraordinary because of its divisiveness among experts in the field.
https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/History/Fall-2020-Slavery-and-Capitalism.pdfReplies: @Anonymous
In a nutshell: use eminent domain to purchase land for an African American homeland in the states with the largest black % of their populations now, like Mississippi and Alabama. Then offer generous reparations to any African American who renounces his American citizenship and moves there.
Any African American who declines reparations and decides to stay in the U.S. could do so, but would be treated like any other American: no affirmative action, no disparate impact, no special dispensation by local authorities to commit crimes without being arrested by the police, etc.
According to the estimate here, the net fiscal impact of African Americans (taxes paid minus government resources consumed) was -481 billion dollars per year in 2018, or about -$10,200 per person. Over a lifetime, that would mean the average African American consumes about $750k more in government resources than he or she pays in taxes. If that's true, then spending anything less than the present value of that on reparations and eminent domain would be a bargain (presumably, the African Americans who turned down reparations and decided to stay in the U.S. would be net fiscal contributors, on average).Replies: @216, @AnotherDad, @Corvinus, @MBlanc46, @Chris Mallory, @anon
The US could purchase a large plot of land in west Africa that could be used as a game park
To the contrary, the profits of slavery went into the pockets of the slaveholder, the cotton merchant, and the industrialist who made textiles. The capital accumulation for the U.S. was in terms of the wealth produced by the slaveholder, the productivity of slaves, and the profits of the cotton trade.Replies: @syonredux
Again, no:
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/08/how-slavery-shaped-american-capitalism
Repatriation is only a pipe dream. Perhaps a major social or political upheaval could change that. But, as AnotherDad says, merely proposing it as a solution to oppression is of great rhetorical value in the debate on race: “If we’re so awful, why don’t you just leave us? We’ll even pay for your resettlement”. There’s no answer to that.
The main obstacle to repatriation is not economic nor humanitarian. Resettling blacks elsewhere would still be less expensive than keeping them in America. The problem is that there are huge forces determined to ensure whites never have their own countries. And, of course, the legacy non-white population is not enough for them. The borders must be open for more.
The economy is improving.Replies: @theMann
Gold is up $440 an ounce in the last year.
The Bond market is a catastrophe.
Every single last State Government in the entire USA is facing a budget shortfall for next year, averaging 29%.
Current official unemployment rat is 14.7%, real rate near 30%.
1 million person exodus from NYC, hundreds of thousands from San Fransisco….etc
Hundreds of thousands of businesses destroyed, and the downstream effect of their failure will cause hundreds of thousands more to fail.
Spot food shortages already occurring, more serious to follow.
Tourism destroyed, Higher Education about to follow in a major way.
But “the Economy is improving”.
Congratulations, you just won Grand Prize in the Galactic Fucktard Contest.
Tropical mountains — always nice weather!! Maybe I’ll see you there?
The point of this sort of "reparations with separation" or any of the other "separation" ideas is that merely proposing them and stoking the outrage precisely gives away the minoritarian game.
The plain fact is the minoritarians are parasitic upon whites. (Which to be clear does not mean there aren't talented minorities doing real work and contributing.) Minorities keep demanding to come toward whites--immigration, integration of your school, country club, neighborhood, nations ... while endlessly whining.
Saying "We can solve your 'oppression' problem, we'll just separate" unmasks the game. It is absolutely critical that conservatives, patriots, do precisely this. Until we blow up their sleazy narrative the minoritarians will keep burying us in bucket after bucket of their sad sack "oppression" shit.Replies: @MBlanc46
You are perhaps more confident that such a proposal would ever be listened to.
‘..a question of dollars and cents..’I tend to agree with the US economist and Lincoln economic adviser, Henry Charles Carey, and his 1853 observation that the North's so called 'cheap labor'/'mass immigration' system was simply the 'slave trade of the last century, but on a grander scale'...ie that the commerce oriented North had simply monetized chattel slavery and it's trade, that is distilled it to it's financial essence, whilst maximizing profits, and that it's system too was based on the systematic theft of labor, the financial essence of slavery.
The guns were turned upon the wrong people in that damnable war.
https://www.unz.com/proberts/the-bankers-blood-money-secession-and-invasion/#comment-4068778Replies: @Anonymous
Was race one of the variables that was taken into account?
Bear in mind, large and powerful segments of the US establishment and hangers on were already anti-race in 1861, so Walker's article reflected that.
They just wanted labor, irregardless of race or ethnicity, they could import in that would costs significantly less than what the prevailing local rates were (ie what they would typically have to pay their own people). This is (unfortunately) what they had become accustomed to in British North America (North and South) with the two hundred plus years of chattel slavery.
Already in 1860 they were importing tens of thousands of Chinese wage slaves (cheap labor) into the US state of California. [In 1876 the California state legislature determined these Chinese were often being paid only about a third of whatever the prevailing local rates for the labor they were performing was.]
With the North's wage slavery (ie so called 'cheap labor') they still got this 'hit' of stolen labor from broken and defeated peoples imported in by diktat, but with all the former costs and hassles of chattel slavery now 'outsourced' to the general public to bear, ie old age care of the slaves, sheltering them, etc.
Walker's 1863 letter from London can be found at one of the two 'Making of America' websites in the March, 1864 edition of the Continental Monthly journal. The article was entitled 'American Finances and Resources'.
In the wake of 'Bleeding Kansas', a microcosm of the coming US Civil War, where guerilla armies privately financed by Northern industrialists and Southern plantation owners, fought for physical and political control of the territory, Henry Seward gave a historic speech in March, 1858, to the US Senate entitled 'Freedom in Kansas'. [See link below.]
In the speech, Seward outlined the evolution of the North's wage slave (ie cheap labor) 'immigrant' based system and the South's chattel slave system, from the time of the 1776 Revolution to 1858. He describes these two systems as incompatible and clashing, and that a multi-generational decades long 'dynastical struggle' had been taking place between them in the United States, but that all the compromises had broken down, and things had come to a head in Kansas.
[Seward used the civil war era euphemism for cheap labor in his speech, 'free labor'. In the years immediately prior to and during the war itself, the term 'cheap labor' literally disappeared from all US corporate media and was replaced with 'free labor'. As soon as the war concluded in 1865 the term 'cheap labor' reappeared in regular usage, except in regards to the US Civil War where 'free labor' is used to this day, and not 'cheap labor'.]
https://archive.org/details/freedominkansa00sewa
African labor was very costly. The workers were in fact compensated at above what the could have received from the market.
The Lawrence's didn't like paying for the extremely expensive chattel slave labor which picked the cotton which fed their Mass textile mills.
Plain fact is the US has a much, much better overall geographical situation--farmland, resources, river transport, access to markets--as either Canada or Australia, plus the scale of a much larger internal market that comes with those advantages. Yet those places do not suck.
The key, shared ingredient was a reasonable intelligent, capable, hard-working Anglo-Saxon settler population gaining access to undeveloped (to Euro ag/tech) lands. They created prosperity and the rule-of-law.
I.e. the key ingredient was deplorable white people. No blacks were required. No immigrants post-1776 were required. (Could have skipped taking in my ancestors and this joint would still be awesome just from the founding population.) The plain fact is blacks were a "get rich quick" scheme for some landholders that the rest of us have been paying for--in civil war, in taxes, in depreciated real-estate, in lower quality of life, in extra social and political contention and of course in crime, ever since.
Not trying to piss all over anyone or rub it in anyone's face. But that's just the reality. And if people are spewing these objectively ridiculous minoritarian fables to attack whitey then this reality needs to be spoken out loud and repeatedly.Replies: @we
So Lee, Bragg, and Hood aren’t the great heroes that Southerners belive them to be. Where do you stand on the renaming controversy?
At least your projection is occasionally entertaining.
Perhaps embrace the power of and?
I lean towards the paid provocateur explanation myself. Corvinus currently has 11,729 Comments with 1,775,300 Words. That is an immense amount of work to devote to a parody.
What is it with the anony's here who make this charge but cannot even offer one iota of evidence?
The crux of the issue of Mr. Steve Sailer’s post — besides it being funny — is that it is a common belief the United States owes black Americans reparations because black slaves greatly contributed to generating the wealth of America.
"You agree with the supporting argument for reparations, and attempt to buttress it."
Once again, you are offering a strawman. I never directly nor indirectly made this assertion.
"Yet the United States of 1900 was far wealthier, per capita, than the United States of year 1800. That was because of technological advancement and industrialization, which the institution of slavery (and individual slaves themselves) contributed very little to."
The sources I provided state otherwise. Again, what specifically from the citations do you object to? Show your work.
"In fact, it was noted by serious observers by the 1850s that the American South was noticably lagging behind the American North in economic development..."
You mean like Hinton Helper?
"If you want to make an argument that a significant portion of the wealth of the pre-industrial United States was generated by the work (and oppression) of slaves, that argument, although fairly shaky, has more substance."
According to Who/Whom?
"Implying — which is indeed what is being done when claiming slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States — the effects of slavery are equivalent to industrialization, is risible and ludicrous."
That is another strawman on your part.Replies: @Anonymous, @res
I’m not an anon and have come to the same conclusion. It is perhaps telling that you do not explicitly deny the charge.
It is perhaps telling that you do not explicitly deny the charge.
If he did…what, after all, difference would it make?
1. If true, denying it would make him a liar. Corvy seems shy about outright lying. He is more about FUD and squid ink.
2. It removes any later possibility of plausible deniability. For example: "Well, I never SAID I wasn't paid. Why should that matter?"
Any others, anyone?
P.S. Note that volunteer provocateur is also a possibility. I'm pretty sure there are SJWs who would do that for free.
Can’t speak for him, but speaking for myself – someone of mixed Yankee/Confederate ancestry who thinks the war was an awful waste on behalf of an awful cause – I say just leave them be. The war ended over 150 years ago. The monuments are what they are. Let people honor their dead and let’s move on. Because the reality is that, as we have recently seen, removing statues and the other among buildings has nothing to do with removing Confederates and everything to do with removing white people. After every offensive statue is gone these people will look at our white skin and tell us “Your white skin reminds us of the evils of slavery,” and the. they will remove us.
where does renaming stop? – oh, forgot, should never respond or participate when a moron speaks. I hate you and your kind for every breath you take – I am done with you. Your kind never built this country or sacrificed for this country…so, STFU. Leave us alone – go live in your glorious blue states – stay out of ours! You and your family is not welcome, ever, if you vote blue. Done with these American commies!
No, race wasn’t. A lot of other things were though.
Bear in mind, large and powerful segments of the US establishment and hangers on were already anti-race in 1861, so Walker’s article reflected that.
They just wanted labor, irregardless of race or ethnicity, they could import in that would costs significantly less than what the prevailing local rates were (ie what they would typically have to pay their own people). This is (unfortunately) what they had become accustomed to in British North America (North and South) with the two hundred plus years of chattel slavery.
Already in 1860 they were importing tens of thousands of Chinese wage slaves (cheap labor) into the US state of California. [In 1876 the California state legislature determined these Chinese were often being paid only about a third of whatever the prevailing local rates for the labor they were performing was.]
With the North’s wage slavery (ie so called ‘cheap labor’) they still got this ‘hit’ of stolen labor from broken and defeated peoples imported in by diktat, but with all the former costs and hassles of chattel slavery now ‘outsourced’ to the general public to bear, ie old age care of the slaves, sheltering them, etc.
Walker’s 1863 letter from London can be found at one of the two ‘Making of America’ websites in the March, 1864 edition of the Continental Monthly journal. The article was entitled ‘American Finances and Resources’.
In the wake of ‘Bleeding Kansas’, a microcosm of the coming US Civil War, where guerilla armies privately financed by Northern industrialists and Southern plantation owners, fought for physical and political control of the territory, Henry Seward gave a historic speech in March, 1858, to the US Senate entitled ‘Freedom in Kansas’. [See link below.]
In the speech, Seward outlined the evolution of the North’s wage slave (ie cheap labor) ‘immigrant’ based system and the South’s chattel slave system, from the time of the 1776 Revolution to 1858. He describes these two systems as incompatible and clashing, and that a multi-generational decades long ‘dynastical struggle’ had been taking place between them in the United States, but that all the compromises had broken down, and things had come to a head in Kansas.
[Seward used the civil war era euphemism for cheap labor in his speech, ‘free labor’. In the years immediately prior to and during the war itself, the term ‘cheap labor’ literally disappeared from all US corporate media and was replaced with ‘free labor’. As soon as the war concluded in 1865 the term ‘cheap labor’ reappeared in regular usage, except in regards to the US Civil War where ‘free labor’ is used to this day, and not ‘cheap labor’.]
https://archive.org/details/freedominkansa00sewa
True, which explains why the Lawrence family of Massachusetts textile factory magnates, whom had financed the construction of Lawrence, ‘Immigrant City’ Mass, in the 1840’s, also financed the construction of its infamous sister city, the ‘abolitionist’ center Lawrence, Kansas, during the mid 1850’s.
The Lawrence’s didn’t like paying for the extremely expensive chattel slave labor which picked the cotton which fed their Mass textile mills.
Anon 227, you are correct, sir! The Union could have fought the CW until no Confederates existed. Munitions, uniforms, transportation, telegraph communication, the ability to feed their army. Slavery retarded the growth of the Deep South.
Geography also works in her favor since East Lansing is much farther from Detroit.Replies: @Anonymous, @Ron Mexico, @Anon7
“Of course. She’s a Michigan State alum, and any opportunity to stick it to U of M is the most important thing.”
Hadn’t thought of that influencing the recent allegations that she is preventing U of M from joining a proposed 6 team Big 10 football season, but it certainly could be a factor. I just figured that she is a giant c$!t and leave it at that.
The Bond market is a catastrophe.
Every single last State Government in the entire USA is facing a budget shortfall for next year, averaging 29%.
Current official unemployment rat is 14.7%, real rate near 30%.
1 million person exodus from NYC, hundreds of thousands from San Fransisco....etc
Hundreds of thousands of businesses destroyed, and the downstream effect of their failure will cause hundreds of thousands more to fail.
Spot food shortages already occurring, more serious to follow.
Tourism destroyed, Higher Education about to follow in a major way.
But "the Economy is improving".
Congratulations, you just won Grand Prize in the Galactic Fucktard Contest.Replies: @Anonymous
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
That isn’t what he wrote. Prove your case.
Speaking of reparations..
Since 1945 the citizens of Okinawa, Japan have been opressed by Black rapists amongst the US occupation troops based there.
In the summer of 1945 three Black US marines whom had made it a habit of coming to a particular Okiniwa village to rape its women with impunity were ambushed and killed. The formerly powerless villagers had recruited two unsurrendered and armed Japanese soldiers from the surrounding jungle to do the deed.
The Black marines lifeless corpses were secretly dumped by the villagers in a cave known since by the locals in memorium as ‘the cave of the dark skinned boys’.
Fifty years later, and in the same tradition as the earlier 1945 incident, three Black serviceman raped a twelve year old Okiniwa girl. Tried and convicted, each was given approximately seven years in a no nonsense Japanese prison.
The Black serviceman’s families accusations of ‘discrimination’ by the Japanese were given short shrift, and ultimately withdrawn. Instead, these Black rapists families were ordered by the Japanese to pay reparations to the Japanese family of the little girl.
As a postscript, one of the three rapists after their release in 2003 complained the Japanese prison labor he performed was like slavery.
Another one, who claimed he only ‘pretended’ to take part in the rape, in 2006 raped a young 22 year old college woman he’d had a past passing acquainship with, then strangled her, before committing suicide.
The young woman, Lauren Cooper, is pictured below.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Okinawa_rape_incident
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Katsuyama_killing_incident
Do the work.
I don't need to cite common knowledge in American history. Your sources do not indicate slaves contributed greatly to the industrialization of the United States, which indeed is an extraordinary claim requiring proof.
Your claim is direct: slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States. My claim is very direct: industrialization is the overwhelming cause of the wealth of the United States, and slavery contributed very little to that process, but actually hindered it.Replies: @Corvinus
“Do the work”.
I did not realize that submitting links that support the thesis** neglects to constitute work in your reality.
“Your claim is direct: slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States.”
Actually, the claim made by historians in the economic realm, and one I agree with, is what I explicitly stated –> **The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.
“Your sources do not indicate slaves contributed greatly to the industrialization of the United States, which indeed is an extraordinary claim requiring proof.”
Actually, in case you missed it, there is a university course that ALL of the materials found in this thread and that addresses the claim, which indeed is extraordinary because of its divisiveness among experts in the field.
https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/History/Fall-2020-Slavery-and-Capitalism.pdf
No one on this thread denies slavery generated wealth for plantation owners and business partners themselves, slavery didn't help the rest of the population much, but rather hurt, but 'active participants' sounds pretty vague actually, as it's left up to the reader to determine the scope of 'active'.... could it not be the entire country?It, of course, is remotely not.Replies: @Corvinus
The piece you linked to was written by John Clegg, who is notorious for his opposition to the thesis. As a commodity, cotton had the advantage of being easily stored and transported. The demand for it already existed in the industrial textile mills in Great Britain in the mid-1700’s. Eventually, the steady stream of southern slave-produced cotton would also supply northern textile mills. Southern cotton helped fuel the nineteenth-century Industrial Revolution in both the United States and Great Britain. The wealth generated plantation owners cycled through to the shipbuilders, producers of textile machinery, banks which provided loans to manufacturers and transporters, and to the citizens themselves in the form of steady employment.
Clegg is part of an ongoing, spirited debate.
https://earlyamericanists.com/2015/11/04/guest-post-correcting-an-incorrect-corrective/
Geography also works in her favor since East Lansing is much farther from Detroit.Replies: @Anonymous, @Ron Mexico, @Anon7
No one either in or out of their right mind would invade East Lansing. Also, while the UM campus is concentrated and lush, MSU is a land-grant college that is spread out all over the landscape. The first thing most MSU students buy is a bicycle. It would be exhausting to march in it or invade it.
Didn’t think about the MSU alum vs. UM hate, but you nailed that one; it has divided residents and indeed families for a century, that I know of.
Another Corvinus seal of approval! It had been three weeks since my last. Thanks Corvy! I appreciate you validating my points by disagreeing with my comments.
Two things.
1. If true, denying it would make him a liar. Corvy seems shy about outright lying. He is more about FUD and squid ink.
2. It removes any later possibility of plausible deniability. For example: “Well, I never SAID I wasn’t paid. Why should that matter?”
Any others, anyone?
P.S. Note that volunteer provocateur is also a possibility. I’m pretty sure there are SJWs who would do that for free.
Didn't think about the MSU alum vs. UM hate, but you nailed that one; it has divided residents and indeed families for a century, that I know of.Replies: @Anonymous
Isn’t it too cold to bicycle?
I did not realize that submitting links that support the thesis** neglects to constitute work in your reality.
"Your claim is direct: slavery greatly contributed to the wealth of the United States."
Actually, the claim made by historians in the economic realm, and one I agree with, is what I explicitly stated --> **The evidence is clear regarding how slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for its active participants at home and abroad.
"Your sources do not indicate slaves contributed greatly to the industrialization of the United States, which indeed is an extraordinary claim requiring proof."
Actually, in case you missed it, there is a university course that ALL of the materials found in this thread and that addresses the claim, which indeed is extraordinary because of its divisiveness among experts in the field.
https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/History/Fall-2020-Slavery-and-Capitalism.pdfReplies: @Anonymous
That isn’t doing the work. Citing the opinion of a single professor on his own course syllabus as proof of… what again, exactly? ‘Slavery as capitalism helper’ is a different argument entirely, and also quite irrelevant, as capitalism and industrialization are different, and labeling an economic sector as capitalist doesn’t mean that sector was ever efficient, or beneficial to society. In fact, in your cited comment, the type of relationship of southern cotton to northern industry is posed as a question — strange that is so, when in the very same cited comment it is mentioned no serious scholar doubts the strong relationship between the development of capitalism and New World slave plantations. As mentioned by numerous commenters in this very thread, no one disputes textile factories in the northern US and England used southern cotton, but rather the dependence was weak because other sources could be, and were indeed, in historical reality, found when supply issues (war) became a problem. And in the 19th Century, it was far more trivial to shift the production of cash crops than build an industrial infrastructure. Which is my point, again: what generated most of the wealth of the United States was industrialization. Which existed in nascent form in those Northern — and slave free — factories, and not in the South — plantation owners being rather hostile to factories, and the feared social changes and political power displacement.
Now, as for your assertion: slavery served as a major economic engine for the growth of the United States, as well as generating wealth for active participants at home ..
Tisk, tisk, Mr. (or Mrs.) Corvinus…are you going back to mealy mouthed quotes?
The first part of your assertion is certainly not proven, the second correct but so vague (I suggest purposely) as to easily allow misinterpretation.
No one on this thread denies slavery generated wealth for plantation owners and business partners themselves, slavery didn’t help the rest of the population much, but rather hurt, but ‘active participants’ sounds pretty vague actually, as it’s left up to the reader to determine the scope of ‘active’…. could it not be the entire country?
It, of course, is remotely not.
Actually, I cited several sources. Pay closer attention. Furthermore, the course syllabus is evidence that this topic will be addressed from multiple perspectives, including the sources I provided. There is an implication that the authors of those works are other than legitimate.
"‘Slavery as capitalism helper’ is a different argument entirely"
In what regard to the sources I cited? Please be specific.
"and also quite irrelevant, as capitalism and industrialization are different, and labeling an economic sector as capitalist doesn’t mean that sector was ever efficient, or beneficial to society."
How is it irrelevant in light of the arguments offered? Please be specific.
"And in the 19th Century, it was far more trivial to shift the production of cash crops than build an industrial infrastructure. Which is my point, again: what generated most of the wealth of the United States was industrialization. Which existed in nascent form in those Northern — and slave free — factories, and not in the South — plantation owners being rather hostile to factories, and the feared social changes and political power displacement.
"The first part of your assertion is certainly not proven, the second correct but so vague (I suggest purposely) as to easily allow misinterpretation."
If you are going to make that charge, please substantiate it with evidence. What specifically from the sources do you disagree with? Why?
People like this, if not being paid, are usually former Nazis trying to prove they’ve ditched their bad old beliefs.
Correct. One of the reasons why the source of cotton (Egypt, the American South, etc) did not really matter. To quote Gavin Wright again:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory1os2xmaster/chapter/the-economics-of-cotton/Industry, finance, invention, organization...all experienced fundamental change under the effects of cotton demand.
Incidentally, dear boy, try to avoid Baptist’s fallacy:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283670502_Capitalism_and_Slavery
No one on this thread denies slavery generated wealth for plantation owners and business partners themselves, slavery didn't help the rest of the population much, but rather hurt, but 'active participants' sounds pretty vague actually, as it's left up to the reader to determine the scope of 'active'.... could it not be the entire country?It, of course, is remotely not.Replies: @Corvinus
“That isn’t doing the work. Citing the opinion of a single professor on his own course syllabus as proof of… what again, exactly?”
Actually, I cited several sources. Pay closer attention. Furthermore, the course syllabus is evidence that this topic will be addressed from multiple perspectives, including the sources I provided. There is an implication that the authors of those works are other than legitimate.
“‘Slavery as capitalism helper’ is a different argument entirely”
In what regard to the sources I cited? Please be specific.
“and also quite irrelevant, as capitalism and industrialization are different, and labeling an economic sector as capitalist doesn’t mean that sector was ever efficient, or beneficial to society.”
How is it irrelevant in light of the arguments offered? Please be specific.
“And in the 19th Century, it was far more trivial to shift the production of cash crops than build an industrial infrastructure. Which is my point, again: what generated most of the wealth of the United States was industrialization. Which existed in nascent form in those Northern — and slave free — factories, and not in the South — plantation owners being rather hostile to factories, and the feared social changes and political power displacement.
“The first part of your assertion is certainly not proven, the second correct but so vague (I suggest purposely) as to easily allow misinterpretation.”
If you are going to make that charge, please substantiate it with evidence. What specifically from the sources do you disagree with? Why?
The source of cotton did matter, as southern cotton in its rawest form in the U.S. was shipped down the Mississippi to New Orleans.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory1os2xmaster/chapter/the-economics-of-cotton/
Industry, finance, invention, organization…all experienced fundamental change under the effects of cotton demand.