• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

WOW!...Georgetown students vote to have tuition fees increased to pay for slave reparations

Rusty Shackelford

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
6,456
Likes
4,972
Location
Northern most Southern State
#1

engineear

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
1,269
Likes
1,382
Location
Phx. area
#2
FUCKING MORONS! How are the families that can prove their ancestors were indeed slaves have ANY relevance that affects them today? They are not opposed to paying more fees that would be separated by the school that would go into a fund to be paid to whom exactly? And for what reason? To make both parties feel warm? How many generations from now will receive money because just like the 15 year old that has a kid and no father gets welfare and then that child has a kid with no father gets welfare and it never ends. How about we pay the people that didnt get hired because a company HAD to hire blacks/minorities? Why not? And then the kids of said victims, because their life was stymied because the parents had to find something else that didn't pay as much so they only got a used Samsung S7 and not a new S10+...it affected them from the perceived notion that they lost status at school for lack of a new phone and so their grades were poor. Oh, the humanity. So THEY get reparations...the beat goes on..Sonny and Cher
Ergo....FUCKING MORONS.

I've got to believe it's just a small group(20% do 80%) that's steering the sheep. More like .1% but, like Limbaugh says "brains full of mush", just out of high school, away from mom and dad, and they soak up the drivel.
We still got a long way to go...Alice Cooper.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,256
Likes
8,846
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#3
All it means (to the kids) is that they'll need an extra $10k in student loans to pay for the higher tuition.

The proper way to ask the question would be, would they be willing to give up a portion of what they already have, in order to make reparations.
 

<SLV>

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,767
Likes
4,723
#4

Fatrat

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
2,043
Likes
1,607
#5
Wealthy people trying to feel good, best of luck.
 

Ebie

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
7,373
Likes
1,731
#6
No
All it means (to the kids) is that they'll need an extra $10k in student loans to pay for the higher tuition.

The proper way to ask the question would be, would they be willing to give up a portion of what they already have, in order to make reparations.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,523
Likes
57,524
Location
Rocky Mountains
#7
Daddy is going to be paying for this... not the students.
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
5,671
Likes
10,321
#8
I think they need to get in line behind the indians that were on this continent before the white man came. I'm pretty sure they had every treaty broken and were basically put on a reservation by the white man.
As for the blacks, they need to go to Africa and find out who sold them into slavery and demand reparations from them.
The bible tells us how to treat our slaves and the US constitution used to allow slavery. If congress and the states all of a sudden change laws and the constitution does that give anyone a right to make a claim prior to the changing?
 

GOLDZILLA

Harvurd Koleej Jeenyus
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
7,738
Likes
7,516
#9
The people going to these schools are mostly women and minorities so yes they are going to go against their own best interests if they think it will affect the "white patriarchs" worse than themselves.
 

Oldmansmith

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,887
Likes
5,023
Location
Taxachusetts
#10
I think they need to get in line behind the indians that were on this continent before the white man came. I'm pretty sure they had every treaty broken and were basically put on a reservation by the white man.
As for the blacks, they need to go to Africa and find out who sold them into slavery and demand reparations from them.
The bible tells us how to treat our slaves and the US constitution used to allow slavery. If congress and the states all of a sudden change laws and the constitution does that give anyone a right to make a claim prior to the changing?
DNA testing shows that I'm 2 percent Native, no doubt from my French Canadian grandparents. I want my fair share!
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
5,671
Likes
10,321
#11
DNA testing shows that I'm 2 percent Native, no doubt from my French Canadian grandparents. I want my fair share!
I was taught we are all out of africa so in fact we are all african American. We all should get a share.
 

chomper

Purveyor of Filth
Silver Miner
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
771
Likes
634
#12
The insanity continues.

I wonder, will we reach an insanity singularity...
 

southfork

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
16,040
Likes
15,110
#15
My right toenail is black, im good for 500 k and i want it now
 

Mujahideen

Black Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
10,601
Likes
18,873
Location
Wakanda
#16
US constitution used to allow slavery.
Actually it still does.

Amendment XIII
Section 1: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
 

Silver

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,468
Likes
6,744
#17
Actually it still does.

Amendment XIII
Section 1: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
You can rot in a cell doing nothing, or you can work for a few cents an hour and have commissary - your choice. Ain't choices great?
 

Mujahideen

Black Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
10,601
Likes
18,873
Location
Wakanda
#18
You can rot in a cell doing nothing, or you can work for a few cents an hour and have commissary - your choice. Ain't choices great?
It’s crazy that one could be put in this situation for possession of organic and unprocessed plants.
 

Mujahideen

Black Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
10,601
Likes
18,873
Location
Wakanda
#19
I know for a fact that at least one of my great-great grandparents was born into slavery; my generation is the first that hasn’t experienced any blatant and socially acceptable racist oppression.

My ancestors were robbed of their heritage. How exactly that effect trickles down to me I feel is impossible to determine. I have been given a fair opportunity at achieving the American dream so I think reparations is too late to have any real meaningful effect. It would have made far more sense for earlier generations. The more time goes by the dumber the idea is and it’s already been a long time. And there is also the unsolved question of why should people who had nothing to do with it be punished?

I feel like ending the war on drugs and the welfare state would benefit blacks (and all Americans) far more than a check from the government.

But if the government offers me some land or some money I’m not gonna lie, I will accept it and I’ll even forgive the dead slave owners. But don’t expect us all to suddenly get along and sing kumbaya with white people. They still will keep using slavery to divide us.
 
Last edited:

FoundingFathers

Founder
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
3,314
Likes
5,681
#20
The Ottoman Turks enslaved my ancestors for 400 years. I wonder if I can get a check from Erdogan.
 

Silver

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,468
Likes
6,744
#21
I know for a fact that at least one of my great-great grandparents was born into slavery; my generation is the first that hasn’t experienced any blatant and socially acceptable racist oppression.

My ancestors were robbed of their heritage. How exactly that effect trickles down to me I feel is impossible to determine. I have been given a fair opportunity at achieving the American dream so I think reparations is too late to have any real meaningful effect. It would have made far more sense for earlier generations. The more time goes by the dumber the idea is and it’s already been a long time. And there is also the unsolved question of why should people who had nothing to do with it be punished?

I feel like ending the war on drugs and the welfare state would benefit blacks (and all Americans) far more than a check from the government.

But if the government offers me some land or some money I’m not gonna lie, I will accept it and I’ll even forgive the dead slave owners. But don’t expect us all to suddenly get along and sing kumbaya with white people. They still will keep using slavery to divide us.
40 acres and a mule? If it's good for former slaves, it's good for all landless peasants...

The Truth Behind '40 Acres and a Mule'

Henry Louis Gates Jr.
1/07/13 12:24am
Filed to: History
85.1K
61

Ulysses L. Houston, in lithograph (He Was a Friend to All, W.&M., Savannah, Ga., 1890)



(The Root) Amazing Fact About the Negro No. 13: What happened to the "40 acres and a mule" that former slaves were promised?

We've all heard the story of the "40 acres and a mule" promise to former slaves. It's a staple of black history lessons, and it's the name of Spike Lee's film company. The promise was the first systematic attempt to provide a form of reparations to newly freed slaves, and it was astonishingly radical for its time, proto-socialist in its implications. In fact, such a policy would be radical in any country today: the federal government's massive confiscation of private property — some 400,000 acres — formerly owned by Confederate land owners, and its methodical redistribution to former black slaves. What most of us haven't heard is that the idea really was generated by black leaders themselves.

It is difficult to stress adequately how revolutionary this idea was: As the historian Eric Foner puts it in his book, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,

"Here in coastal South Carolina and Georgia, the prospect beckoned of a transformation of Southern society more radical even than the end of slavery." Try to imagine how profoundly different the history of race relations in the United States would have been had this policy been implemented and enforced; had the former slaves actually had access to the ownership of land, of property; if they had had a chance to be self-sufficient economically, to build, accrue and pass on wealth. After all, one of the principal promises of America was the possibility of average people being able to own land, and all that such ownership entailed. As we know all too well, this promise was not to be realized for the overwhelming majority of the nation's former slaves, who numbered about 3.9 million.

What Exactly Was Promised?

We have been taught in school that the source of the policy of "40 acres and a mule" was Union General William T. Sherman's Special Field Order No. 15, issued on Jan. 16, 1865. (That account is half-right: Sherman prescribed the 40 acres in that Order, but not the mule. The mule would come later.) But what many accounts leave out is that this idea for massive land redistribution actually was the result of a discussion that Sherman and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton held four days before Sherman issued the Order, with 20 leaders of the black community in Savannah, Ga., where Sherman was headquartered following his famous March to the Sea. The meeting was unprecedented in American history.

Today, we commonly use the phrase "40 acres and a mule," but few of us have read the Order itself. Three of its parts are relevant here. Section one bears repeating in full: "The islands from Charleston, south, the abandoned rice fields along the rivers for thirty miles back from the sea, and the country bordering the St. Johns river, Florida, are reserved and set apart for the settlement of the negroes [sic] now made free by the acts of war and the proclamation of the President of the United States."

Section two specifies that these new communities, moreover, would be governed entirely by black people themselves: " … on the islands, and in the settlements hereafter to be established, no white person whatever, unless military officers and soldiers detailed for duty, will be permitted to reside; and the sole and exclusive management of affairs will be left to the freed people themselves … By the laws of war, and orders of the President of the United States, the negro [sic] is free and must be dealt with as such."

Finally, section three specifies the allocation of land: " … each family shall have a plot of not more than (40) acres of tillable ground, and when it borders on some water channel, with not more than 800 feet water front, in the possession of which land the military authorities will afford them protection, until such time as they can protect themselves, or until Congress shall regulate their title."

With this Order, 400,000 acres of land — "a strip of coastline stretching from Charleston, South Carolina, to the St. John's River in Florida, including Georgia's Sea Islands and the mainland thirty miles in from the coast," as Barton Myers reports — would be redistributed to the newly freed slaves. The extent of this Order and its larger implications are mind-boggling, actually.

Who Came Up With the Idea?

Here's how this radical proposal — which must have completely blown the minds of the rebel Confederates — actually came about. The abolitionists Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens and other Radical Republicans had been actively advocating land redistribution "to break the back of Southern slaveholders' power," as Myers observed.

But Sherman's plan only took shape after the meeting that he and Stanton held with those black ministers, at 8:00 p.m., Jan. 12, on the second floor of Charles Green's mansion on Savannah's Macon Street. In its broadest strokes, "40 acres and a mule" was their idea.

Stanton, aware of the great historical significance of the meeting, presented Henry Ward Beecher (Harriet Beecher Stowe's famous brother) a verbatim transcript of the discussion, which Beecher read to his congregation at New York's Plymouth Church and which the New York Daily Tribune printed in full in its Feb. 13, 1865, edition. Stanton told Beecher that "for the first time in the history of this nation, the representatives of the government had gone to these poor debased people to ask them what they wanted for themselves." Stanton had suggested to Sherman that they gather "the leaders of the local Negro community" and ask them something no one else had apparently thought to ask: "What do you want for your own people" following the war? And what they wanted astonishes us even today.

Who were these 20 thoughtful leaders who exhibited such foresight? They were all ministers, mostly Baptist and Methodist. Most curious of all to me is that 11 of the 20 had been born free in slave states, of which 10 had lived as free men in the Confederacy during the course of the Civil War. (The other one, a man named James Lynch, was born free in Maryland, a slave state, and had only moved to the South two years before.) The other nine ministers had been slaves in the South who became "contraband," and hence free, only because of the Emancipation Proclamation, when Union forces liberated them.

Their chosen leader and spokesman was a Baptist minister named Garrison Frazier, aged 67, who had been born in Granville, N.C., and was a slave until 1857, "when he purchased freedom for himself and wife for $1000 in gold and silver," as the New York Daily Tribune reported. Rev. Frazier had been "in the ministry for thirty-five years," and it was he who bore the responsibility of answering the 12 questions that Sherman and Stanton put to the group. The stakes for the future of the Negro people were high.

And Frazier and his brothers did not disappoint. What did they tell Sherman and Stanton that the Negro most wanted? Land! "The way we can best take care of ourselves," Rev. Frazier began his answer to the crucial third question, "is to have land, and turn it and till it by our own labor … and we can soon maintain ourselves and have something to spare … We want to be placed on land until we are able to buy it and make it our own." And when asked next where the freed slaves "would rather live — whether scattered among the whites or in colonies by themselves," without missing a beat, Brother Frazier (as the transcript calls him) replied that "I would prefer to live by ourselves, for there is a prejudice against us in the South that will take years to get over … " When polled individually around the table, all but one — James Lynch, 26, the man who had moved south from Baltimore — said that they agreed with Frazier. Four days later, Sherman issued Special Field Order No. 15, after President Lincoln approved it.

What Became of the Land That Was Promised?

The response to the Order was immediate. When the transcript of the meeting was reprinted in the black publication Christian Recorder, an editorial note intoned that "From this it will be seen that the colored people down South are not so dumb as many suppose them to be," reflecting North-South, slave-free black class tensions that continued well into the modern civil rights movement. The effect throughout the South was electric: As Eric Foner explains, "the freedmen hastened to take advantage of the Order." Baptist minister Ulysses L. Houston, one of the group that had met with Sherman, led 1,000 blacks to Skidaway Island, Ga., where they established a self-governing community with Houston as the "black governor." And by June, "40,000 freedmen had been settled on 400,000 acres of 'Sherman Land.' " By the way, Sherman later ordered that the army could lend the new settlers mules; hence the phrase, "40 acres and a mule."

And what happened to this astonishingly visionary program, which would have fundamentally altered the course of American race relations? Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's successor and a sympathizer with the South, overturned the Order in the fall of 1865, and, as Barton Myers sadly concludes, "returned the land along the South Carolina, Georgia and Florida coasts to the planters who had originally owned it" — to the very people who had declared war on the United States of America.


Henry Louis Gates Jr. is the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor and the director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African-American Research at Harvard University. He is also the editor-in-chief of The Root.
 

hoarder

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
11,594
Likes
11,950
Location
Montana
#22
Whenever I read the results of voting like the OP, The old quote "He who counts the votes" comes to mind. Could be legitimate. But if Georgetown is aggressive enough with their "White guilt" social engineering to brainwash these mush-brained children to vote that way, they are agenda-driven enough to skew the vote.
 

hoarder

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
11,594
Likes
11,950
Location
Montana
#23
I know for a fact that at least one of my great-great grandparents was born into slavery; my generation is the first that hasn’t experienced any blatant and socially acceptable racist oppression.
Why would "racist oppression" be justification for reparations in any case? All races are racist. If Blacks or Mexicans had the upper hand and oppressed Whites by not hiring them and not selling them real estate, do you think the current generation of either would go along with paying reparations to Whites? The problem is not racism, because racism is natural and instinctive. The problem is "togetherness".
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,256
Likes
8,846
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#24
Why would "racist oppression" be justification for reparations in any case? All races are racist.
A few weeks ago a black guy actually tried to tell me that "it's impossible for a black man to be racist". I told him, why didn't you just say you was a comedian? lol