I just want to point something out here.  Was slavery wrong back then?  I'm talking about by 1700's/1800's standards not 2019 standards.  Back then it was an accepted practice and "normal".    It was also perfectly legal up until 1863.

I am by no means saying that the practice was "right", I am just pointing out that if you put yourself back into that era your feelings might be different on the matter.

Put it this way, between 1920 and 1933 production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages was against the law.  Was this the right thing do do either morally or legally?

I'm not comparing the two things directly, I'm comparing them ideologically.  Should reparations be paid to descendants of those that were denied their access and/or arrested or imprisoned because of their access to alcoholic beverages?

Again I am not comparing the two issues to one another, I am just illustrating the point that the idea of reparations is ridiculous regarding both situations.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

How many more programs and legislation will it take to heal the wounds of 7 generations removed from transatlantic slavery? I know...hold a synergistic healing festival and make white people pay twice the amount!

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/afrofuture-...4562699773

---

Here's a good example of the futility of such a stunt.  Do mixed race people pay $15? What about the obvious hypocrisy? The entire premise of this, and reparations, is fundamentally flawed.

---

I just want to point something out here.  Was slavery wrong back then?  I'm talking about by 1700's/1800's standards not 2019 standards.  Back then it was an accepted practice and "normal".    It was also perfectly legal up until 1863.

Actually, there is some substance to the accusation that American Slavery was significantly different (for the worse) than slavery found in other countries. Nathan Glazer wrote about the distinction in the Introduction to the 1963 book Slavery :

“In Brazil, the slave had many more rights than in the United States: He could legally marry, he could, indeed had to, be baptized and become a member of the Catholic Church, his family could not be broken up for sale, and he had many days on which he could either rest or earn money to buy his freedom. The Government encouraged manumission, and the freedom of infants could often be purchased for a small sum at the baptismal font. In short: the Brazilian slave knew he was a man, and that he differed in degree, not in kind, from his master.”

“[In the United States,] the slave was totally removed from the protection of organized society (compare the elaborate provisions for the protection of slaves in the Bible), his existence as a human being was given no recognition by any religious or secular agency, he was totally ignorant of and completely cut off from his past, and he was offered absolutely no hope for the future. His children could be sold, his marriage was not recognized, his wife could be violated or sold (there was something comic about calling the woman with whom the master permitted him to live a ‘wife’), and he could also be subject, without redress, to frightful barbarities—there were presumably as many sadists among slave owners, men and women, as there are in other groups. The slave could not, by law, be taught to read or write; he could not practice any religion without the permission of his master, and could never meet with his fellows, for religious or any other purposes, except in the presence of a white; and finally, if a master wished to free him, every legal obstacle was used to thwart such action. This was not what slavery meant in the ancient world, in medieval and early modern Europe, or in Brazil and the West Indies."

Quite frankly American Slavery was the very worst form of slavery in recorded history. There was no hope for those people, ever. It doesn't really vary that much from the horrors of the Nazis, though the genocide they perpetrated was intended to produce a very different outcome.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I just want to point something out here.  Was slavery wrong back then?  I'm talking about by 1700's/1800's standards not 2019 standards.  Back then it was an accepted practice and "normal".    It was also perfectly legal up until 1863.

Actually, there is some substance to the accusation that American Slavery was significantly different (for the worse) than slavery found in other countries. Nathan Glazer wrote about the distinction in the Introduction to the 1963 book Slavery :

“In Brazil, the slave had many more rights than in the United States: He could legally marry, he could, indeed had to, be baptized and become a member of the Catholic Church, his family could not be broken up for sale, and he had many days on which he could either rest or earn money to buy his freedom. The Government encouraged manumission, and the freedom of infants could often be purchased for a small sum at the baptismal font. In short: the Brazilian slave knew he was a man, and that he differed in degree, not in kind, from his master.”

“[In the United States,] the slave was totally removed from the protection of organized society (compare the elaborate provisions for the protection of slaves in the Bible), his existence as a human being was given no recognition by any religious or secular agency, he was totally ignorant of and completely cut off from his past, and he was offered absolutely no hope for the future. His children could be sold, his marriage was not recognized, his wife could be violated or sold (there was something comic about calling the woman with whom the master permitted him to live a ‘wife’), and he could also be subject, without redress, to frightful barbarities—there were presumably as many sadists among slave owners, men and women, as there are in other groups. The slave could not, by law, be taught to read or write; he could not practice any religion without the permission of his master, and could never meet with his fellows, for religious or any other purposes, except in the presence of a white; and finally, if a master wished to free him, every legal obstacle was used to thwart such action. This was not what slavery meant in the ancient world, in medieval and early modern Europe, or in Brazil and the West Indies."

Quite frankly American Slavery was the very worst form of slavery in recorded history. There was no hope for those people, ever. It doesn't really vary that much from the horrors of the Nazis, though the genocide they perpetrated was intended to produce a very different outcome.

Haitian slavery may have been worse.
All slavery varied in time and in place.
Everything you said is true, in terms of what the masters in the US could have gotten away with legally, but peer pressure meant that slaves would not work on Sundays, even if they were instead compelled to attend the church with the Master's preacher.
What you said about slavery in Brazil is also right, but more pertinent to the last century that it existed. The centuries before that, the social norm in most of South America and the Caribbean was to literally work the slaves to death, and keep bringing in massive numbers of new slaves to replace them.  Owners in the US South were never so careless; at the least they wanted their slave populations growing by reproduction rather than importation.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Actually, there is some substance to the accusation that American Slavery was significantly different (for the worse) than slavery found in other countries. Nathan Glazer wrote about the distinction in the Introduction to the 1963 book Slavery :

“In Brazil, the slave had many more rights than in the United States: He could legally marry, he could, indeed had to, be baptized and become a member of the Catholic Church, his family could not be broken up for sale, and he had many days on which he could either rest or earn money to buy his freedom. The Government encouraged manumission, and the freedom of infants could often be purchased for a small sum at the baptismal font. In short: the Brazilian slave knew he was a man, and that he differed in degree, not in kind, from his master.”

“[In the United States,] the slave was totally removed from the protection of organized society (compare the elaborate provisions for the protection of slaves in the Bible), his existence as a human being was given no recognition by any religious or secular agency, he was totally ignorant of and completely cut off from his past, and he was offered absolutely no hope for the future. His children could be sold, his marriage was not recognized, his wife could be violated or sold (there was something comic about calling the woman with whom the master permitted him to live a ‘wife’), and he could also be subject, without redress, to frightful barbarities—there were presumably as many sadists among slave owners, men and women, as there are in other groups. The slave could not, by law, be taught to read or write; he could not practice any religion without the permission of his master, and could never meet with his fellows, for religious or any other purposes, except in the presence of a white; and finally, if a master wished to free him, every legal obstacle was used to thwart such action. This was not what slavery meant in the ancient world, in medieval and early modern Europe, or in Brazil and the West Indies."

Quite frankly American Slavery was the very worst form of slavery in recorded history. There was no hope for those people, ever. It doesn't really vary that much from the horrors of the Nazis, though the genocide they perpetrated was intended to produce a very different outcome.

Haitian slavery may have been worse.
All slavery varied in time and in place.
Everything you said is true, in terms of what the masters in the US could have gotten away with legally, but peer pressure meant that slaves would not work on Sundays, even if they were instead compelled to attend the church with the Master's preacher.
What you said about slavery in Brazil is also right, but more pertinent to the last century that it existed. The centuries before that, the social norm in most of South America and the Caribbean was to literally work the slaves to death, and keep bringing in massive numbers of new slaves to replace them.  Owners in the US South were never so careless; at the least they wanted their slave populations growing by reproduction rather than importation.

I'm glad you know more than the scholar who wrote the damn book, what ever would we do if you weren't here to correct him?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Haitian slavery may have been worse.
All slavery varied in time and in place.
Everything you said is true, in terms of what the masters in the US could have gotten away with legally, but peer pressure meant that slaves would not work on Sundays, even if they were instead compelled to attend the church with the Master's preacher.
What you said about slavery in Brazil is also right, but more pertinent to the last century that it existed. The centuries before that, the social norm in most of South America and the Caribbean was to literally work the slaves to death, and keep bringing in massive numbers of new slaves to replace them.  Owners in the US South were never so careless; at the least they wanted their slave populations growing by reproduction rather than importation.

I'm glad you know more than the scholar who wrote the damn book, what ever would we do if you weren't here to correct him?

Perhaps he hits those points in his book.
Just not in the snippet of the book you found.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I just want to point something out here.  Was slavery wrong back then?  I'm talking about by 1700's/1800's standards not 2019 standards.  Back then it was an accepted practice and "normal".    It was also perfectly legal up until 1863.

Actually, there is some substance to the accusation that American Slavery was significantly different (for the worse) than slavery found in other countries. Nathan Glazer wrote about the distinction in the Introduction to the 1963 book Slavery :

“In Brazil, the slave had many more rights than in the United States: He could legally marry, he could, indeed had to, be baptized and become a member of the Catholic Church, his family could not be broken up for sale, and he had many days on which he could either rest or earn money to buy his freedom. The Government encouraged manumission, and the freedom of infants could often be purchased for a small sum at the baptismal font. In short: the Brazilian slave knew he was a man, and that he differed in degree, not in kind, from his master.”

“[In the United States,] the slave was totally removed from the protection of organized society (compare the elaborate provisions for the protection of slaves in the Bible), his existence as a human being was given no recognition by any religious or secular agency, he was totally ignorant of and completely cut off from his past, and he was offered absolutely no hope for the future. His children could be sold, his marriage was not recognized, his wife could be violated or sold (there was something comic about calling the woman with whom the master permitted him to live a ‘wife’), and he could also be subject, without redress, to frightful barbarities—there were presumably as many sadists among slave owners, men and women, as there are in other groups. The slave could not, by law, be taught to read or write; he could not practice any religion without the permission of his master, and could never meet with his fellows, for religious or any other purposes, except in the presence of a white; and finally, if a master wished to free him, every legal obstacle was used to thwart such action. This was not what slavery meant in the ancient world, in medieval and early modern Europe, or in Brazil and the West Indies."

Quite frankly American Slavery was the very worst form of slavery in recorded history. There was no hope for those people, ever. It doesn't really vary that much from the horrors of the Nazis, though the genocide they perpetrated was intended to produce a very different outcome.

Actually, to my knowledge in some eastern countries they practiced mandatory castration with roughly a 10% survival rate.

---

Actually, there is some substance to the accusation that American Slavery was significantly different (for the worse) than slavery found in other countries. Nathan Glazer wrote about the distinction in the Introduction to the 1963 book Slavery :

“In Brazil, the slave had many more rights than in the United States: He could legally marry, he could, indeed had to, be baptized and become a member of the Catholic Church, his family could not be broken up for sale, and he had many days on which he could either rest or earn money to buy his freedom. The Government encouraged manumission, and the freedom of infants could often be purchased for a small sum at the baptismal font. In short: the Brazilian slave knew he was a man, and that he differed in degree, not in kind, from his master.”

“[In the United States,] the slave was totally removed from the protection of organized society (compare the elaborate provisions for the protection of slaves in the Bible), his existence as a human being was given no recognition by any religious or secular agency, he was totally ignorant of and completely cut off from his past, and he was offered absolutely no hope for the future. His children could be sold, his marriage was not recognized, his wife could be violated or sold (there was something comic about calling the woman with whom the master permitted him to live a ‘wife’), and he could also be subject, without redress, to frightful barbarities—there were presumably as many sadists among slave owners, men and women, as there are in other groups. The slave could not, by law, be taught to read or write; he could not practice any religion without the permission of his master, and could never meet with his fellows, for religious or any other purposes, except in the presence of a white; and finally, if a master wished to free him, every legal obstacle was used to thwart such action. This was not what slavery meant in the ancient world, in medieval and early modern Europe, or in Brazil and the West Indies."

Quite frankly American Slavery was the very worst form of slavery in recorded history. There was no hope for those people, ever. It doesn't really vary that much from the horrors of the Nazis, though the genocide they perpetrated was intended to produce a very different outcome.

Actually, to my knowledge in some eastern countries they practiced mandatory castration with roughly a 10% survival rate.

Things which cause men to inhale sharply through their teeth.

---

I just want to point something out here.  Was slavery wrong back then?  I'm talking about by 1700's/1800's standards not 2019 standards.  Back then it was an accepted practice and "normal".    It was also perfectly legal up until 1863.

I am by no means saying that the practice was "right", I am just pointing out that if you put yourself back into that era your feelings might be different on the matter.

Put it this way, between 1920 and 1933 production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages was against the law.  Was this the right thing do do either morally or legally?

I'm not comparing the two things directly, I'm comparing them ideologically.  Should reparations be paid to descendants of those that were denied their access and/or arrested or imprisoned because of their access to alcoholic beverages?

Again I am not comparing the two issues to one another, I am just illustrating the point that the idea of reparations is ridiculous regarding both situations.

From 1933-1945, rounding up and slaughtering Jews, Romani, homosexuals and other "undesirable" groups was "normal" and "perfectly legal" in Germany. By your deplorable logic on slavery, because that was perfectly acceptable at the time, nothing was owed to the people who suffered it or the families of those lost. Hell, based upon your own words, what you're saying here, the country of Israel that you so vigorously defend should never have been recognized by the US. After all, its creation was engineered and immediately accepted as a form of reparations.

---

I just want to point something out here.  Was slavery wrong back then?  I'm talking about by 1700's/1800's standards not 2019 standards.  Back then it was an accepted practice and "normal".    It was also perfectly legal up until 1863.

I am by no means saying that the practice was "right", I am just pointing out that if you put yourself back into that era your feelings might be different on the matter.

Put it this way, between 1920 and 1933 production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages was against the law.  Was this the right thing do do either morally or legally?

I'm not comparing the two things directly, I'm comparing them ideologically.  Should reparations be paid to descendants of those that were denied their access and/or arrested or imprisoned because of their access to alcoholic beverages?

Again I am not comparing the two issues to one another, I am just illustrating the point that the idea of reparations is ridiculous regarding both situations.

From 1933-1945, rounding up and slaughtering Jews, Romani, homosexuals and other "undesirable" groups was "normal" and "perfectly legal" in Germany. By your deplorable logic on slavery, because that was perfectly acceptable at the time, nothing was owed to the people who suffered it or the families of those lost. Hell, based upon your own words, what you're saying here, the country of Israel that you so vigorously defend should never have been recognized by the US. After all, its creation was engineered and immediately accepted as a form of reparations.

Using your explanation, I'd be fine with reparations for slavery SURVIVORS.

---

I just want to point something out here.  Was slavery wrong back then?  I'm talking about by 1700's/1800's standards not 2019 standards.  Back then it was an accepted practice and "normal".    It was also perfectly legal up until 1863.

I am by no means saying that the practice was "right", I am just pointing out that if you put yourself back into that era your feelings might be different on the matter.

Put it this way, between 1920 and 1933 production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages was against the law.  Was this the right thing do do either morally or legally?

I'm not comparing the two things directly, I'm comparing them ideologically.  Should reparations be paid to descendants of those that were denied their access and/or arrested or imprisoned because of their access to alcoholic beverages?

Again I am not comparing the two issues to one another, I am just illustrating the point that the idea of reparations is ridiculous regarding both situations.

From 1933-1945, rounding up and slaughtering Jews, Romani, homosexuals and other "undesirable" groups was "normal" and "perfectly legal" in Germany. By your deplorable logic on slavery, because that was perfectly acceptable at the time, nothing was owed to the people who suffered it or the families of those lost. Hell, based upon your own words, what you're saying here, the country of Israel that you so vigorously defend should never have been recognized by the US. After all, its creation was engineered and immediately accepted as a form of reparations.

1. There's a big difference between being enslaved vs. being killed. Slaves were considered valuable property, and only the stupidest owner would kill a slave. Yes slavery was abominable, but not as abominable as mass extermination.

2. Germany was one country going against established norms. The USA wasn't the only country to allow slavery it was universally accepted at the time. I've read (so correct me if I'm wrong) that the US was the second country (after England) to abolish slavery, so ahead of most of the rest of the world in that regard.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I just want to point something out here.  Was slavery wrong back then?  I'm talking about by 1700's/1800's standards not 2019 standards.  Back then it was an accepted practice and "normal".    It was also perfectly legal up until 1863.

I am by no means saying that the practice was "right", I am just pointing out that if you put yourself back into that era your feelings might be different on the matter.

Put it this way, between 1920 and 1933 production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages was against the law.  Was this the right thing do do either morally or legally?

I'm not comparing the two things directly, I'm comparing them ideologically.  Should reparations be paid to descendants of those that were denied their access and/or arrested or imprisoned because of their access to alcoholic beverages?

Again I am not comparing the two issues to one another, I am just illustrating the point that the idea of reparations is ridiculous regarding both situations.

From 1933-1945, rounding up and slaughtering Jews, Romani, homosexuals and other "undesirable" groups was "normal" and "perfectly legal" in Germany. By your deplorable logic on slavery, because that was perfectly acceptable at the time, nothing was owed to the people who suffered it or the families of those lost. Hell, based upon your own words, what you're saying here, the country of Israel that you so vigorously defend should never have been recognized by the US. After all, its creation was engineered and immediately accepted as a form of reparations.

I think that you are missing my point.  My point is that the idea of reparations for things that happened in this country's history is ridiculous.

I also pointed out that slavery vs. prohibition was pretty much an "apples"-to-"garden hose" comparison.  Now you are comparing "apples", "garden hoses" and "refrigerators".  None have anything to do with one another.

By the way, thank you for the compliment regarding my logic as "deplorable".  I was and still am proud to be one of Hillary's "deplorable citizens".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.