🚀 go-pugleaf

"Thomas Jackson" <achevyl89@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:304e78e2.0201221655.5ed66d67@posting.google.com...
> Short list:
>
> 1) Who was affected?
>    It CANNOT be a blanket program because it has to be proven that any
> recipients really are descendants of those who were "adversely
> affected" (more about that a little later) by oppression

Of course it can be a blanket program. Most blak folks here in the South are
descendents of slaves. Of course just making it direct payments to black
people wouldn't be a good idea.


> 2) What did they lose?
>    Most of the africans who came over here were sold to the dutch
> slave traders by fellow african tribes that had conquered them.

Don't know what you are basing this on. However, when you sue you should go
after who was in volved in "wronging" you who also has the money. The former
tribes don't, the USA does.

> 3) Why did some end up in better circumstances (judges, politicans,
> athletes, etc) than others (poverty, poor skills, etc.)?
>    It is evident that AA's have done BETTER over here in American than
> they would have done if they all stayed over there.  You have a
> billionaire (the guy that owns BET) and many, many millionaires
> (sports stars, judges, politicians, media moguls, etc.) as well as
> successful "learned" people like judges and politicians.  The people
> mentioned in this section have had the opportunity to help their
> brethren who have been "discriminated against", but have not by and
> large.
>    Now contrast that with the plight of the African in the bush and
> tell me who has it better.  And why a lot of "them" have succeeded
> over here  in the good ol' USA.

SOrry, but it is insane to pull the "but they are better off here than in
Africa" arguement.No group of people would want to be ripped from their
homes, have many members die in transit to the USA, and be sold into
servitide for generations just for the chance that a couple of them might be
well off in 400 years.

> 4)  Some of those who didn't benefit from slavery are expected to be
> paying.
>     As noted in 1) above a VERIFIABLE geneology would have to be done
> - not only for anyone getting any reparations, but for those who would
> be expected to pony us the reparations as well.
>     Take my specific case.

No I won't. It is the US goverment thqat allowed the slavery, so if there
were reperations than the US government should pay.

> I rest my case, for now, but not my argument.

The arguement does need a rest, as we'll never pass reparations for slavery
anyway. It'd cost too much and every segment of the government would be
against it.

>
> Bring it on,
> Thomas