Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should the U.S. give reparations for slavery?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • nastle
    replied
    Originally posted by marktwain View Post

    When we 'round up the usual suspects' for who started Christ-ianity, for some strange reason, Jesus is top of the list..
    really ? he left a church and well defined doctrine when he was killed ? which historical source is that ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Forty acres and a mule. Deduct welfare, food stamps, affirmative action programs which paid for college education, hiring preferences, subsidized housing and health care.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stonewall_Jack
    replied
    Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
    Funnily enough THAT is a Marxist argument – straight up historic materialism. No one but them makes THAT argument.

    Though I am of course aware that Marxist is the LAST thing you are. What I assume you probably want to say here is that Catholic Church is morally destitute and only about filthy lucre, and always has been. Unlike morally upright, God-fearing Protestants.

    No, unless the king of France was going around saying "L'Églie c'est moi!" Philippe le Bel didn't however. He was the one who seized their assets and put them on the bonfires.

    The Dominican Order was tasked with the original Inquisition, in southern France and northern Italy, beginning in 1231, to convert the Cathars, Paterans, Bogomils, Waldensians etc. that had taken hold there. No seizures, though, and a process of peaceful conversion, in particular in Northen Italy where about HALF the population was initially considered heretics of some kind.
    The later SPANISH Inquisition, which was under the Spanish Crown, later did things somewhat differently. (Still, might want to watch that Marxist historical materialist streak showing.)

    No, again that was the kings. And when it wasn't it tended to be local Big Men out to make money, far away from any kind of either royal or church control. The Church argued that the natives were human being in need of being brought to Christ.

    Interestingly in the latest move by the Vatican we might be getting some better documentation of what went on.

    You are exaggerating MASSIVELY here. But it is NOT somehow random. What you have presented here is in effect the Anglosaxon Protestant Black Legend of Catholicism, poineered by the British, replanted in its New World colonies, and apparently still flourishing.

    You're from the South too?
    Those are great points. You clearly have a grasp of the middle ages and I am jealous.

    What do you know of Alphonso X, The Spanish King of the 13th Century. He was said to be a liberal man for his time. Now thats another thing, "his time". What do you make of progress of equality among man during the middle ages. For example in the 12th century, the famous Muslim scholar Ibn Jubair visited the Catholic Kingdom of Jerusalem, said to be by some a violent Crusader State. Yet Jubair, said that Muslims preferred to live in the Catholic State due to success, the Muslims said they had it better off in the Catholic State compared to Islamic lands.

    What do you make of Christopher Columbus, perhaps responsible for paving the way for The Spanish Empire in 1492. Now Columbus was said to praise some of the natives he encountered in the so called New Land in the Taino People. Something along the line Columbus said to his Queen Isabella that there can be no better people then the Taino. Yet some say Columbus was some sort of monster. So what do you make of Columbus?

    Finally do you know of the English Catholic historian John Lingard? Lingard lives in 19th century England and apparently had some success in England and respect from Protestant English. Is someone like Lingard an exception in 19th Century Protestant England?

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post

    I wonder how many other times you have stood on a position made of quicksand because your understanding of the language was equally shaky.

    The North American Colonies had no representation in Parliament, they were Colonies .
    The Southern States had full representation in Congress and Senate and were part of the nation itself.

    Most folks got that clue already, its the difference between the Congo going its own way and Flanders & Walloon going their separate ways.
    Why colonies should have a representation in Parliament ? They're colonies for a reason. The goal of existence of colonies is to serve the metropolitan country.
    Southern States had a representation but why should it matter ? They wanted to separate and that's what they did.

    Flanders and Wallonia can go their separate ways in near future.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by Emtos View Post

    A revolt leading ot independence is exactly a secession. And a perfidous betrayal by the way.
    I wonder how many other times you have stood on a position made of quicksand because your understanding of the language was equally shaky.

    The North American Colonies had no representation in Parliament, they were Colonies .
    The Southern States had full representation in Congress and Senate and were part of the nation itself.

    Most folks got that clue already, its the difference between the Congo going its own way and Flanders & Walloon going their separate ways.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    It wasn't a secession, it was a revolt of a colony from the mother country. Again, get your facts straight.
    A revolt leading ot independence is exactly a secession. And a perfidous betrayal by the way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Emtos View Post

    Show me where it says in British constitution that somebody can secede from Britain. And why should states respect some old paper ?
    It wasn't a secession, it was a revolt of a colony from the mother country. Again, get your facts straight.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuebor
    replied
    This is such a silly and moronic idea. Who is left alive to reparate? What about indentured servants? Do they get reparations too? Who pays for the reparations? The descendants of all those who fought and died (well of those who were able to have descendants, before getting croaked) freeing the slaves? If we keep it to the descendants of slave owners, or Southerners in general, what about those who are descended from both sides? Do they pay half as much?

    I had two great great grand-pappies who put the torch to Georgie and a certain capitol city of Southron Carolinee. Do I get a "Get Out of Paying Reparations" card? What about blacks? Do their taxes go into paying reparations for the suffering of their own antecedents? What about people of mixed color, especially in the south?

    The insanity gets deep very fast, when we start talking about paying out reparations for something that occurred more than a century and a half ago.

    This is nothing more than a bunch of guilty white people trying to make political hay with any greedy black person who might believe he should get a nice stipend for something that happened to somebody else five or more generations in the past.

    Tuebor

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    Again, you are incorrect in your assumptions. And no state has the right to secede from the United States. If you believe that a state does, please show where in the US Constitution that it states that.
    Show me where it says in British constitution that somebody can secede from Britain. And why should states respect some old paper ?

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Seriously? It was the Church that started the Holy Crusades in order to take control of the rich spice trading routes. It was the Church who destroyed the Templars for their money and lands. It was the Church that sponsored the Inquisition which was all about seizing money and property. It was the Church that rap[ed and enslaved and butchered the New World. And it was the Church that made a deal with the Nazis to protect themselves, said nothing and did nothing about the mass extinction of the Jews and then provided Vatican diplomatic passports, sanctuaries and transportation to help the murderer and torturers out of Germany to escape prosecution. The Church has a foul history when it comes to civil rights.

    And none of this has anything to do with 21st century demands for reparations by people who have never know slavery on their entire lives but whose ancestors were often enslaved in the past by Catholics.

    NO REPARATIONS, PERIOD.
    If "none of...." has nothing to with the topic, why in heck did you post it in the first place??
    I am beginning to suspect, MM, that behind your agnostic mask , lurks a genuine snake handlin' brother of the Rockbottom Crick first reptilian divinity....

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Emtos View Post

    It's normal that colonials doesn't have the same rights as normal Englishmen. It will be absurd to give to give them some rights.

    Soithern States had the right to separate from Yankees. It's not a question of rights, it's a question of identity.
    Again, you are incorrect in your assumptions. And no state has the right to secede from the United States. If you believe that a state does, please show where in the US Constitution that it states that.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post

    he did ? what is the evidence ?
    When we 'round up the usual suspects' for who started Christ-ianity, for some strange reason, Jesus is top of the list..

    Leave a comment:


  • American87
    replied
    Originally posted by Savez View Post
    If I knew my money was going to help fellow Southerners I'd be happy to pay reparations. They were exploited for a long time. Building up black communities and small businesses could benefit everyone.
    Good point. Do you think we should increase welfare for all people, and not just pay reparations to blacks?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
    Funnily enough THAT is a Marxist argument – straight up historic materialism. No one but them makes THAT argument.

    Though I am of course aware that Marxist is the LAST thing you are. What I assume you probably want to say here is that Catholic Church is morally destitute and only about filthy lucre, and always has been. Unlike morally upright, God-fearing Protestants.

    No, unless the king of France was going around saying "L'Églie c'est moi!" Philippe le Bel didn't however. He was the one who seized their assets and put them on the bonfires.

    The Dominican Order was tasked with the original Inquisition, in southern France and northern Italy, beginning in 1231, to convert the Cathars, Paterans, Bogomils, Waldensians etc. that had taken hold there. No seizures, though, and a process of peaceful conversion, in particular in Northen Italy where about HALF the population was initially considered heretics of some kind.
    The later SPANISH Inquisition, which was under the Spanish Crown, later did things somewhat differently. (Still, might want to watch that Marxist historical materialist streak showing.)

    No, again that was the kings. And when it wasn't it tended to be local Big Men out to make money, far away from any kind of either royal or church control. The Church argued that the natives were human being in need of being brought to Christ.

    Interestingly in the latest move by the Vatican we might be getting some better documentation of what went on.

    You are exaggerating MASSIVELY here. But it is NOT somehow random. What you have presented here is in effect the Anglosaxon Protestant Black Legend of Catholicism, poineered by the British, replanted in its New World colonies, and apparently still flourishing.

    You're from the South too?
    Marxist? Horse pucky. That's liberal revisionism of history.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    No the two were quite different. The Americans were living in colonies without the same rights as Englishmen. In point of fact they were not considered Englishment by the British government. That was not the case with the southern states in the US as they were full citizens, with the notable exception of the black slaves, and they had the same rights as other American citizens.

    Once again a foray by you into history comes up with incorrect and skewed material.

    And if you're actually interested in the period of the American Revolution you might want to study just a little bit the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment.
    It's normal that colonials doesn't have the same rights as normal Englishmen. It will be absurd to give to give them some rights.

    Soithern States had the right to separate from Yankees. It's not a question of rights, it's a question of identity.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X