Except of course for the fact that the North wasn't fighting to end slavery, but to have the prosperous Southern states unconstitutionally put under control of a bloated central Federal government. When you say "the Civil War was about slavery" you deny history.
Slavery was bad, horrible, of course. Not in question here and whiners should not derail on that. The point is that the system of government the founders created led to the end of slavery, not the Union's unwarranted aggression to a legal neighboring country: the CSA.
Pay attention. I never said why the CSA legally seceded. I said the cause of the war. The CSA separated as was their right as sovereign states. The Union failed to leave SC forcing removal by force. The Union could have left peacefully but chose not to.
As I wrote to Perez, the secession documents of every seceding state listed the perpetuation and protection of slavery as either the only reason or the main for seceding from the union. You can read these documents online for free. I don't know what conservative would tell you the war was NOT about slavery unless they were completely ignorant.
Surely you’ve heard the whole “states’ rights” deflection before? I know I did a million times growing up in the south, including from my own grandparents.
Conservatives also point to the fact Abraham Lincoln didn’t issue an Emancipation Proclamation until midway through the Civil War. However, the connection between the Union and the slavery issue was definitely on his mind throughout and even before he became President.
It had to have been. It was the key issue of his day. Many difficult compromises between north and south on this issue had been reached in the decades prior to keep it together.
And Southern states were already arming themselves and seceding by the time Lincoln was inaugurated, although no shots had yet been fired.
The debt we owe black American descendants of slaves from hundreds of years of unpaid bondage doesn’t go away because we waited too long, or because they would be logistically difficult to track down, or because the debt with interest is at this point astronomical, or because some who didn’t directly profit from slavery will have to pay, or because we lack the political courage to do so.
The debt for slavery, as my meme points out, was paid 350,000 times. How much is a life worth? How much is someone's blood worth? 350,000 people, most of which had nothing to do with slavery, gave their lives to end it. People demanded an apology from the U.S. for slavery (which Congress did publicly in 2008), but I haven't heard any black leaders publicly THANK those 350,000 mostly white men for giving their lives to free the slaves.
Tl;dr — Countries actually can sue each other for things they’ve done in the past (even going back all the way to the Middle Ages — see France & Britain’s dispute over the Minquiers and Ecrehos Islands in the English Channel) and get awards of either money or land.
But anywho. What other countries have done or failed to do about slavery or any other issue in their history is another non-excuse for failure to compensate American descendants of slaves that were harmed in America by Americans which I should have added to my list of non-excuses above.
Not to mention the incredibly large federal transfer programs of Medicare and Social Security.
(But they paid into these programs!!! Indeed, we all do — but in practical terms, the way funding for these programs works is that current workers pay for current retirees. They’d go insolvent rapidly if people stopped paying taxes.)
A reparations program for descendants of slaves would be kind of like the above and also no doubt unique in its own ways. There are many ways you could set one up — a private claims system, a public claims system, or just cut every black person in this country who isn’t a recent immigrant a check in the interests of efficiency.
Point being we can do it if we have the political will.
LOL Yeah sure, I'M the one who's brainwashed! The top picture has him holding a sign that reads "Reparations for the descendants of Africans ENSLAVED in America." The things you mention came AFTER slavery was abolished. And what about the over 300,000 WHITE Americans who died to free the slaves? Who is going to pay THEIR descendants for the sacrifice they made with their very lives to free the slaves?
I have NO PROBLEM with paying the descendants of slaves ANY AMOUNT they want for slavery, Jim Crow, Segregation, etc., as long as the ones doing the paying to those descendants are the descendants of those who HELD SLAVES. And we all know the party responsible for that, don't we? Why should the entire country be made to pay for the sins of one group of people?
"Fighting for freedom should not be a job to get paid for. It should be a responsibility."
It isn't. You're missing the point. Those 300,000+ men paid for those slaves' freedom with their lives. How much is your life worth? They did their jobs to the utmost and made the ultimate sacrifice for people they had no personal knowledge of. So their descendants shouldn't have to give more than the priceless amount those men paid. Being a relative separated by generations does not make it the responsibility of people living today to correct the mistakes of the past.
"This argument has been repeated over and over again, and it has been repeatedly dismantled again and again."
"That isn’t my point. My whole point is that we will never be able to pay back this debt we owe. The best we can do is provide equality for everyone."
Show me a country on this planet that has done more repair the damage of its past.
"their descendants shouldn't have to give more than the priceless amount those men paid."
I agree that we shouldn't have to, but we must be prepared to defend those who need defending at whatever cost, even if it means our lives. Nobody should ever have that make that decision, but one must be prepared to make it, because you never know when it could be you who is disadvantaged.
I don't suggest that we should be paying people back monetarily, the citizens of our country obviously can't handle that right now. But we should at least be providing the bare minimum, equality. Black people in this country are severely disadvantaged in many regards. They are disproportionately targeted and abused by police, they're disadvantaged in voting polls through limiting polling stations in communities with high populations of black people, and decades of fear-mongering, gentrification, blockbusting, and gerrymandering have subjugated many black communities to poverty and living in ghettos. And don't try to tell me that black people have been given as many opportunities as white people, because that is simply untrue. For black people, the road to opportunity has been paved with broken glass and nails.
I don't advocate for white guilt, that's counterproductive and doesn't put us anywhere but backwards. But we can at least do the bare minimum.
Learn to school yourself, my friend.
But fine, I'll humor you.
In case you haven't noticed, a lot has changed since 1861. Comparing the platform of the Democratic party in the 19th century and the platform of the Democratic party in the 21st century shows that very few similarities are there. I'll leave a few links to a few articles and videos explaining the history of the Democratic party and its changes (especially in the early- to mid- 20th century) so that you can read some more for yourself. I doubt you will, but if it's any encouragement, I'd be very proud of you if you did :)
But to summarize, the Democratic party in the 19th century did not necessarily stand for pro-slavery. They were largely populist expansionists, especially in the Jacksonian era. The Civil War and the slavery argument was largely split regionally. After the Civil War, the Democratic party lost power and popularity, especially after Andrew Johnson, who passed out political pardons to Confederate leaders so sparsely that the South was left unaccountable for their actions, and the lack of accountability would later manifest in the Jim Crow laws and segregation of the 20th century. The Democratic party saw minor shifts in its beliefs throughout the 20th century in the form of the progressive era and FDR's New Deal, with the views and platform becoming increasingly progressive, angering traditional Dems. But by far the most substantial change came during the Civil Rights movement when Kennedy and LBJ (two very prominent Democrats) supported the integration of black and white people in our society. This change in sentiment, along with Republican party leaders becoming increasingly indifferent to racial issues, sparked a mass exodus of black people from the Republican party to the Democratic party. Fast forward to today, and comparing either the modern Republicans or Democrats to their 19th century counterparts may prove to be a nearly impossible task, with the only common thread being the Republicans battling large government.
The Democrats of the 19th century were no doubt evil. I don't think that's a very controversial statement. But to say that the Democratic party of today and the archaic 19th century Jacksonian Democrats are even close to the same party is entirely ridiculous.
To continue...You're embracing the "Big Switch Between the Parties" lie, which I figured. THAT has been dismantled over and over again.
"This change in sentiment, along with Republican party leaders becoming increasingly indifferent to racial issues, sparked a mass exodus of black people from the Republican party to the Democratic party."
Also wrong. Show me credible sources that say the Republican Party became indifferent to racial issues. The "mass exodus" of blacks to the Democrat party actually came in the 1930s when FDR put out his "New Deal."
"Fast forward to today, and comparing either the modern Republicans or Democrats to their 19th century counterparts may prove to be a nearly impossible task, with the only common thread being the Republicans battling large government."
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Again, show me credible sources that support that. In closing...
The Democrat Party is now who they were. It has been the Party of racism and oppression since the inception of this country. They started with slavery. Then it was intimidation (KKK). Then Segregation. Then Jim Crow. Then drugs and alcohol. Today, it's entitlements. Liberal Democrats have infiltrated the education system and spent the last 60+ years trying to project the sins of their Party onto the Republican Party. Do you really believe that Republicans spent almost 200 years FIGHTING racism and oppression of blacks and minorities, and then within SEVEN SHORT YEARS of reaching the pinnacle of success in 1965, they just decided to take up the banner of racism and run with it? LOL
“ Show me credible sources that say the Republican Party became indifferent to racial issues.”
This is more in recent years, but it highlights how the Republican Party denies that racial issues exist due to racism, specifically in how black people struggle to gain an edge, economically and socially. If anything, it highlights an overwhelming ignorance for the Republican Party as a whole to the severe disparity between black and white people, and racists hide easiest among those who are ignorant.
Ah, I see you have decided to ignore the multiple sources that I placed, while providing none of your own. Like I said, I had a feeling you were just going to brush by them but what can ya do
“Do you really believe that Republicans spent almost 200 years FIGHTING racism and oppression of blacks and minorities, and then within SEVEN SHORT YEARS of reaching the pinnacle of success in 1965, they just decided to take up the banner of racism and run with it?”
No, I’m saying it was gradual. As the Republican Party grew to devote more of its attention to economic issues, racial and social issues were oft overlooked and dismissed. I personally don’t believe that this was due to hatred or malice, but just pure ignorance of the situation black people face.
I do admit I was incorrect in my statement that the Democratic Party was not necessarily Pro-Slavery, that was incorrect. However, my other claims that the Democratic Party had a major shift stands true, with evidence to back it up.
Can you send me any reputable sources? Dinesh D’Souza’s conspiracy theories and Dennis Prager’s propaganda machine are not reputable sources. As for the CrowderBits video, the men in the video were making their point under the assumption that historians who talk about the “Big Switch” do so assuming that all people who switched parties did so for racist intentions. However, the switch after the Civil Rights movement was heavily based on race, even if not all, even most individuals were racist. The Republican Party stands for big business and minimal government intervention. The Civil Rights voting laws were the exact opposite of that, imposing another major law upon state governments. So obviously not all Republicans that believe in a smaller government role are racists. That’s silly. But the guise of “well, I don’t believe in government intervention in social issues” is a really convenient cover for being racist and pushing an agenda of turning the other way when unjust and racist things do happen.
LOL You're joking, right? You send me a VOX video, a far-left, Trump-hating outlet, and then knock the credibility of MY sources? Give me a break! Dinesh D'Souza is a scholar, and very knowledgable about what he says. I've heard several people like you knock him, but I have yet to see anyone refute him successfully. Let me know when you plan to debate him, I'd pay good money to watch! The three sources line up. And D'Souza identified with the DEMOCRATS when he came to this country!
In order for the Parties to switch, there would have to be a noticeable exodus. Meaning non-racist Republicans, who fought for the rights of blacks since before they were a Party or we even were a country (Benjamin Franklin), would have to welcome racist Democrats into the Party. Why would they do that? Even today, when someone switches Parties it's mostly because their Party's values and theirs no longer line up. So a Democrat would need to renounce his Party's racism in order to join the GOP. I've never read about any mass exodus of Republicans to the Democrat party and vice versa. The Democrat party is who the Democrat party was. Liberals can try and rewrite history, but the facts are the facts. And the facts don't support any big switch.
The video also operates under the assumption that the “Big Switch” refers to mountains of individuals switching parties. But actually, the biggest changes were in the overall ideology of each group and party. So while any individual may not have switched parties after the Civil Rights movement, the general public and views began to change.
"the biggest changes were in the overall ideology of each group and party."
LOL You don't really believe that, do you? What a coincidence that it only took seven years for both sides to discover after all those decades they were actually on the wrong side! The south did not become dominated by Republicans until the late 80's-the early 90s. That's a long time to decide that you were supporting the wrong side, isn't it? If Nixon was appealing to racists in order to get re-elected, why did it take another 25 years or so for the GOP to dominate in the South?
LOLOL Wait...You refer to THAT for credible sources?! A chart that lists NPR, CBS, ABC, Bloomberg, Newsweek, and the like as "just left of center," and FOX News and The Daily Caller as "Hyper-Partisan Right?"
"Show me a country on this planet that has done more repair the damage of its past."
Hmmm, how about Germany?
I think this is the least important point in Germany's favor, but to this day, they still pay reparations to France and other countries.
More importantly, Germany has given the younger generations one of the most vital aspects of fixing and atoning for the mistakes of a country: education. If you go to Germany, you won't find anyone trying to defend the actions of Hitler and the Nazis. Nobody is arguing that "well, the Nazis were only exercising their rights since they came into power." People recognize that what happened was wrong. They do this through proper education and by providing the Jewish people with a society willing to accept them.
Compare this with America. In America, we still have teachers trying to argue that the Civil War was about states' rights, without asking "states' rights to do what?" We still have people claiming the Confederate flag is a symbol of Southern pride without asking why it was flown over the battlefields of men fighting for their rights to keep another human being as nothing more than a piece of equipment. We have people fighting to keep Confederate statues that praise generals and soldiers without asking what they are being exalted for.
This is what I meant about atonement. Americans don't apologize. We makes excuses and changes the history. Americans don't learn from its mistakes. We stubbornly insists that it was right all along, even if that means excusing the traitorous racists who came before us.
Americans do not atone. Americans fumble to come up with anything that exempts us from having to feel any guilt. And where we used to be leaders, it is making us into the laughing stock of the rest of the first world.
LOL Yeah, Germany paying for TEN years of Hitler after WWII is doing MUCH more compared to America fighting a civil war and spending the next 150 years trying to correct FOUR HUNDRED YEARS of slavery. What else you got?
"This is what I meant about atonement. Americans don't apologize. We makes excuses and changes the history. Americans don't learn from its mistakes. We stubbornly insists that it was right all along, even if that means excusing the traitorous racists who came before us."
Wrong. Congress formally apologized for slavery in 2008. The rest of that paragraph, as well as the next, is complete nonsense, so I don't need to reply to it. Likewise, your entire second post that starts with my comment, "Their descendants shouldn't have to give more..." is also complete nonsense. Actually, your third post is sheer stupidity, but I'll entertain it for a moment...
"the Democratic party in the 19th century did not necessarily stand for pro-slavery."
LOL That is not only wrong but it's probably the dopiest thing I've read about slavery in a while. As I wrote on another post, the secession documents of EVERY SECEDING STATE listed the perpetuation of slavery as either the sole or the main reason for the secession. I suggest you spend a little time reading the documents.
"the South was left unaccountable for their actions"
That is also wrong. Abraham Lincoln specifically said he wanted no legal action brought against the South and that they were to be welcomed back as citizens. The only ones who faced the law were Jefferson Davis and a few of the senior people in his "administration," as well as war crimes tribunals against people like those who ran the Andersonville prison camp.
"But by far the most substantial change came during the Civil Rights movement when Kennedy and LBJ (two very prominent Democrats) supported the integration of black and white people in our society."
Wrong again. The Civil/Voting rights bills were passed with overwhelming REPUBLICAN support and DEMOCRAT opposition. First, JFK was a wholly different Democrat than LBJ or the Dixiecrats. JFK could NEVER be elected president today. Not as a Democrat, anyway. LBJ was an unrepentant RACIST who signed them into law, but also said, "I'll have them n****rs voting Democrat for the next 200 years." Aides and people close to him stated that he called blacks "n*****rs" all the time.
"Your logical fallacy is ad hominem.
You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.
Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it."
It was more than an observation. I was pointing out that your argument had a fallacy that, while not always a discredit to the argument, can often make the attempted argument appear to be juvenile and underdeveloped, casting attention away from the actual argument.
I fail to see what anything there has to do with the argument of slavery in the United States. Please redirect your attention to the argument at hand, not the background you assume I come from.
"Your logical fallacy is genetic
You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.
This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit."
"Your logical fallacy is tu quoque.
You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.
Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translating as 'you too' this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism."
If you pay attention to what I wrote, I very clearly state that I do not believe in reparations, I am simply sympathizing with the desire and am advocating for equality, which is so severely lacking in the United States.
I cannot speak to the racial issues of other countries as well as I can to those of the United States, I’ve never been to or lived in them. But I can tell you this much for damn sure.
Don’t you dare tell me to pay up for what happened to my ancestors. You couldn’t tell it by looking at me, as my mother is white and I have inherited that trait. But one glance at my father and it becomes clear that his forefathers were undoubtedly slaves brought to Puerto Rico and Cuba. That the atrocities you tell me to pay for were committed against my own ancestors. Due to the demographics of the Caribbean Islands, the truth is that the Spanish slave owners also likely run in my blood, as well as the native Taino people who were slaughtered, raped, and who slowly and painfully succumbed to European disease.
I have felt the burden of my ancestors’ blood, sweat, and tears spilled in the ground of Puerto Rico and Cuba, and I have learned to live with and be grateful for them and the horrendous sacrifices they had to make in order to simply survive. I was maybe 10 or 11 when I first realized that when my grandmother told me we had eastern African and Egyptian in our blood, that meant that my ancestors were carted across the sea to a strange land where they couldn’t have been expected to live more than a few years, just long enough to produce more children to join the cycle of slavery.
I have never once felt guilt over my ancestors who held these men and women and children captive. I’ve never felt that to be necessary or productive. But I don’t have to lie awake in bed at night to own up to it. I recognize it. I try to take some semblance of responsibility for it and try to use their mistakes to better myself and my country. And that is what I mean when I say Americans do not know anything of atonement. We sit idle and say “we’ll that wasn’t me” without ever even guaranteeing the most basic of rights for our minority citizens. Not unless someone starts to burn shit or flip over a few cars, because only then do the idle bystanders see themselves as involved, because their own stuff is at risk, not out of compassion or empathy.
So yeah, until America has owned up to its sins, until we atone, the riots will continue, and we will not reach justice
Riots are one of the most democratic processes there is. They happen when a group becomes so desperate and yet so powerless to change something within the system that they have no choice but to make the change outside of it. They happen when the majority are the ones with no power and the minority hold all of it, so that the country is left in an oligarchy. It’s how the American Revolution started, isn’t it? That’s how many parts of the Civil Rights movement operated, wasn’t it?
I find it interesting that our society adores revolutionary stories like the Star Wars franchise, the Hunger Games franchise, and all the way back to Les Miserables, but when people show the slightest of bit of discontent with the status quo in real life, it’s treated with harshness and accusations of anarchy.
I’m all for peaceful protests when, but when the peaceful protestors are being dragged away in unmarked government vehicles, then those with the ability should have the power to oppose that through any means necessary. Unmarked government vehicles dragging away political dissidents is not democratic, and should not be how any humane, first world country should operate.
Besides, when black people are being killed in the streets by cops, PEACEFUL protestors are being shot at by men in riot gear, and our “President” is completely and totally against the protests, then why should I care if someone destroys a target, or loots a convenient store? The police are the ones who showed up in riot gear and treated us as if we were threats by shooting the protestors. Maybe it’s about damn time we met those expectations and defended our lives and the lives of our fellow citizens.
I never owned a slave so I’m not paying anybody shit. I don’t owe anybody anything. Guilt for history is a false notion because you can never go back and fix or rectify what has been done. The Spanish enslaved the indigenous people’s they encountered in the new world too. The Egyptians enslaved the Jews, the Romans enslaved everybody, the Africans and Muslim Arabs traded slaves for over a 1000 years. Lots of people enslaved other people’s and they will never repay it. Nor should we expect ancient figures to be held to modern ideals, that’s idiotic. Learn from history you can’t change it.
To the other guys point 580,000 white soldiers died in the struggle. Most slaves lived. Slavery ended in 1865. Everything after that is a struggle for equality And blacks weren’t the only ones who struggled for it.
Exactly. Some good points. You can only learn from the past so you don't repeat it. Atonement, as Perez calls it, is a useless endeavor at this point in time. It comes from the white guilt "woke " liberal Democrats are trying to push on the country while at the same time they try and erase the sins of their party in order to perpetuate the "Big Switch of the Parties" lie and project their sins onto conservative Republicans.
I can't wait to read Perez's explanation of the argument that "has been dismantled again and again." But I have a feeling I won't, so I'm not going to wait standing up! :D