5 ms·
> Do you mean each successive generation of blacks were wealthier than the previous? What about a comparison to the average white person? No I mean the average
by slashdev 3y ago
> Do you mean each successive generation of blacks were wealthier than the previous? What about a comparison to the average white person?
No I mean the average African-American is easily over 10x wealthier, and has far better opportunities than the average citizen of the countries that now inhabit the lands they originally came from. Were it not for slavery, again as abhorrent as it was, they'd be a lot worse off today.
> here were many laws that existed well after slavery that could prevent a black person from succeeding.
Yes, that's a fact.
- nomat 3y ago[flagged]
- slashdev 3y agoNo. You can't argue with what I said, it's a fact. Facts just are. You can argue about what it means if you want, or how it makes you feel.
- nomat 3y agoyou keep saying that but your set of facts is clearly missing many pieces (you admit as much) so to keep repeating it doesn't make it any more true and is really revealing a lot.
- slashdev 3y agoYou can't make a fact more true. It simply is. You can drop the personal attacks and insinuations. That's not necessary.
- cycrutchfield 3y agoIt’s not really a personal attack to point out that your “just asking questions” routine happens to dovetail nicely with certain political talking points. Why so defensive?
- evandale 3y agoWhy don't you name the pieces of facts that are missing then so the parent can respond to it? You keep making personal attacks and asking if the parent is employed by the state of Florida. What does their employment situation have to do with anything?
- slashdev 3y agoThat was a different person, although your point is valid for the other person.
- evandale 3y agoAhh, I honestly don't pay attention to usernames. I replied to someone who is defending your attacker and making the same low effort quips so I assume they have no problem with the bizarre employment question or they would have flagged the comment or called it out for what it is.
- slashdev 3y agoThis is also in rather poor taste. To point you in the right direction: "to keep repeating it doesn't make it any more true and is really revealing a lot" of undesirable things about you as a person. The latter words added by me and implied. That's a personal attack.
- troupe 3y agoIt is also easy to forget that the suppliers of slaves were African nations that practiced slavery themselves. They found the Europeans to be great customers for their slaves. So descendants of the Ashanti and others benefited from the selling of slaves. If we really want to look at reparations, we probably need some way to determine what percentage each person benefited from slavery and what percentage they suffered from it. Also there were slaves from Asia and other places that are probably just as deserving of payments if that happens. But all of this flies in face of the narrative that slavery was something whites did to blacks. A better approach would be to try to provide opportunities that people can take advantage of. The US actually does a great job of this which is why we don't see mass exodus of people trying to go back to the African nations.
- ribosometronome 3y agoEasily forgotten? It's brought up in just about every discussion on the subject, including this one, already, by the person you were replying to agree with.
- troupe 3y agoI've never seen it as something that was thought about as part of any reparation ideas.
- themitigating 3y agoWhy would it be a part of the discussion?
- troupe 3y agoWell if you want to take money from the general population and give to people whose ancestors were harmed by slavery, you need some way to differentiate between ancestors who were harmed by and ancestors who benefited from slavery. If that isn't part of the discussion, then people are just proposing a welfare system to give money to people based on the color of their skin.
- themitigating 3y agoNo I mean the average African-American is easily over 10x wealthier, and has far better opportunities than the average citizen of the countries that now inhabit the lands they originally came from. Because those countries were devastated by Europeans
- slashdev 3y agoThose countries were created by Europeans, they didn’t exist before that. The tribes that were there before were not much of a civilization. They weren’t behind the rest of the world because of colonialism, they were colonized because they were behind the rest of the world.
- themitigating 3y agoBehind the rest of the world how? Technology? Would you say Native Americans were behind? They had a thriving society.
- slashdev 3y agoIn technology, economy, health, longevity, and general well being. Yes, way behind.
- themitigating 3y ago"technology, economy" That's subjective. Maybe happiness is the most important aspect of a society