- This topic has 315 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by
jficquette.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 5, 2008 at 9:27 AM #217430June 5, 2008 at 9:34 AM #217279
34f3f3f
ParticipantSeems like the Obama vs McCain post was a side show for a debate on compensation for slavery. In an ideal world, compensation for atrocities seems like a good idea. The problem with compensation, is always just how much, and how far you go back? How can you place a yard stick on something as amorphous as human suffering? One danger is that by paying too little you inflame rather than appease. Another fact that needs to be born in mind is that slave trading started long before it happened in the US. Research show that Muslims were buying Africa slaves as early as 900 AD. The Portuguese as sometimes cited as having started the European slave trade, and the importing of slaves to American continent was before it even became a de facto sovereign state. So who then becomes responsible?
That the slave trade was (and lest we forget, continues to be) one of the worst and most humiliating forms of subjugation by one set of humans over another, is more a testimony to the human condition …our dark side. Fortunately, part of the human condition is also the ability to recognize mistakes and correct them. So compensation is fine is things are clear cut, but get rocky when things aren’t. If compensation is to be paid, I think the best form it can take is to vote a for President who has an unambiguous historical link to the times in question. That leads neatly onto the Obama vs McCain topic.
One theory suggests that it’s not really about who is going to be the next president, and whether their policies are going to be any better than their predecessors. It’s about the turgidity of Washington itself, and how to break the age old mold that has firmly embedded itself in the system. My feeling is that Obama represents a kind of subconscious desire of many Americans to overturn or ‘change’ that status quo and inertia, and it’s as if his background offers some kind of guarantee of that. Shaking up Washington wouldn’t do any harm, but it must be remembered that the Clinton era aligned itself with the financial services industry, which carries a lot of clout, and even Obama was heavily funded by Citadel.
I think where the two fundamentally differ is on foreign policy, and I am interested to see how Obama’s immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq plays out.
June 5, 2008 at 9:34 AM #217366ParticipantSeems like the Obama vs McCain post was a side show for a debate on compensation for slavery. In an ideal world, compensation for atrocities seems like a good idea. The problem with compensation, is always just how much, and how far you go back? How can you place a yard stick on something as amorphous as human suffering? One danger is that by paying too little you inflame rather than appease. Another fact that needs to be born in mind is that slave trading started long before it happened in the US. Research show that Muslims were buying Africa slaves as early as 900 AD. The Portuguese as sometimes cited as having started the European slave trade, and the importing of slaves to American continent was before it even became a de facto sovereign state. So who then becomes responsible?
That the slave trade was (and lest we forget, continues to be) one of the worst and most humiliating forms of subjugation by one set of humans over another, is more a testimony to the human condition …our dark side. Fortunately, part of the human condition is also the ability to recognize mistakes and correct them. So compensation is fine is things are clear cut, but get rocky when things aren’t. If compensation is to be paid, I think the best form it can take is to vote a for President who has an unambiguous historical link to the times in question. That leads neatly onto the Obama vs McCain topic.
One theory suggests that it’s not really about who is going to be the next president, and whether their policies are going to be any better than their predecessors. It’s about the turgidity of Washington itself, and how to break the age old mold that has firmly embedded itself in the system. My feeling is that Obama represents a kind of subconscious desire of many Americans to overturn or ‘change’ that status quo and inertia, and it’s as if his background offers some kind of guarantee of that. Shaking up Washington wouldn’t do any harm, but it must be remembered that the Clinton era aligned itself with the financial services industry, which carries a lot of clout, and even Obama was heavily funded by Citadel.
I think where the two fundamentally differ is on foreign policy, and I am interested to see how Obama’s immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq plays out.
June 5, 2008 at 9:34 AM #217389ParticipantSeems like the Obama vs McCain post was a side show for a debate on compensation for slavery. In an ideal world, compensation for atrocities seems like a good idea. The problem with compensation, is always just how much, and how far you go back? How can you place a yard stick on something as amorphous as human suffering? One danger is that by paying too little you inflame rather than appease. Another fact that needs to be born in mind is that slave trading started long before it happened in the US. Research show that Muslims were buying Africa slaves as early as 900 AD. The Portuguese as sometimes cited as having started the European slave trade, and the importing of slaves to American continent was before it even became a de facto sovereign state. So who then becomes responsible?
That the slave trade was (and lest we forget, continues to be) one of the worst and most humiliating forms of subjugation by one set of humans over another, is more a testimony to the human condition …our dark side. Fortunately, part of the human condition is also the ability to recognize mistakes and correct them. So compensation is fine is things are clear cut, but get rocky when things aren’t. If compensation is to be paid, I think the best form it can take is to vote a for President who has an unambiguous historical link to the times in question. That leads neatly onto the Obama vs McCain topic.
One theory suggests that it’s not really about who is going to be the next president, and whether their policies are going to be any better than their predecessors. It’s about the turgidity of Washington itself, and how to break the age old mold that has firmly embedded itself in the system. My feeling is that Obama represents a kind of subconscious desire of many Americans to overturn or ‘change’ that status quo and inertia, and it’s as if his background offers some kind of guarantee of that. Shaking up Washington wouldn’t do any harm, but it must be remembered that the Clinton era aligned itself with the financial services industry, which carries a lot of clout, and even Obama was heavily funded by Citadel.
I think where the two fundamentally differ is on foreign policy, and I am interested to see how Obama’s immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq plays out.
June 5, 2008 at 9:34 AM #217417ParticipantSeems like the Obama vs McCain post was a side show for a debate on compensation for slavery. In an ideal world, compensation for atrocities seems like a good idea. The problem with compensation, is always just how much, and how far you go back? How can you place a yard stick on something as amorphous as human suffering? One danger is that by paying too little you inflame rather than appease. Another fact that needs to be born in mind is that slave trading started long before it happened in the US. Research show that Muslims were buying Africa slaves as early as 900 AD. The Portuguese as sometimes cited as having started the European slave trade, and the importing of slaves to American continent was before it even became a de facto sovereign state. So who then becomes responsible?
That the slave trade was (and lest we forget, continues to be) one of the worst and most humiliating forms of subjugation by one set of humans over another, is more a testimony to the human condition …our dark side. Fortunately, part of the human condition is also the ability to recognize mistakes and correct them. So compensation is fine is things are clear cut, but get rocky when things aren’t. If compensation is to be paid, I think the best form it can take is to vote a for President who has an unambiguous historical link to the times in question. That leads neatly onto the Obama vs McCain topic.
One theory suggests that it’s not really about who is going to be the next president, and whether their policies are going to be any better than their predecessors. It’s about the turgidity of Washington itself, and how to break the age old mold that has firmly embedded itself in the system. My feeling is that Obama represents a kind of subconscious desire of many Americans to overturn or ‘change’ that status quo and inertia, and it’s as if his background offers some kind of guarantee of that. Shaking up Washington wouldn’t do any harm, but it must be remembered that the Clinton era aligned itself with the financial services industry, which carries a lot of clout, and even Obama was heavily funded by Citadel.
I think where the two fundamentally differ is on foreign policy, and I am interested to see how Obama’s immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq plays out.
June 5, 2008 at 9:34 AM #217440ParticipantSeems like the Obama vs McCain post was a side show for a debate on compensation for slavery. In an ideal world, compensation for atrocities seems like a good idea. The problem with compensation, is always just how much, and how far you go back? How can you place a yard stick on something as amorphous as human suffering? One danger is that by paying too little you inflame rather than appease. Another fact that needs to be born in mind is that slave trading started long before it happened in the US. Research show that Muslims were buying Africa slaves as early as 900 AD. The Portuguese as sometimes cited as having started the European slave trade, and the importing of slaves to American continent was before it even became a de facto sovereign state. So who then becomes responsible?
That the slave trade was (and lest we forget, continues to be) one of the worst and most humiliating forms of subjugation by one set of humans over another, is more a testimony to the human condition …our dark side. Fortunately, part of the human condition is also the ability to recognize mistakes and correct them. So compensation is fine is things are clear cut, but get rocky when things aren’t. If compensation is to be paid, I think the best form it can take is to vote a for President who has an unambiguous historical link to the times in question. That leads neatly onto the Obama vs McCain topic.
One theory suggests that it’s not really about who is going to be the next president, and whether their policies are going to be any better than their predecessors. It’s about the turgidity of Washington itself, and how to break the age old mold that has firmly embedded itself in the system. My feeling is that Obama represents a kind of subconscious desire of many Americans to overturn or ‘change’ that status quo and inertia, and it’s as if his background offers some kind of guarantee of that. Shaking up Washington wouldn’t do any harm, but it must be remembered that the Clinton era aligned itself with the financial services industry, which carries a lot of clout, and even Obama was heavily funded by Citadel.
I think where the two fundamentally differ is on foreign policy, and I am interested to see how Obama’s immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq plays out.
June 5, 2008 at 10:05 AM #217314meadandale
Participant“I personally think that this country should apologize for slavery and pay the descendants of slaves compensation.”
No offense, but anyone who believes in reparations for slavery is an idiot.
My grandparents were immigrants. They arrived long after slavery was abolished. I was born AFTER civil rights was passed. Why the f*** should I have to pay ANYTHING to people who are several generations removed from slavery?
“I’m sorry?” For what? I haven’t done anything to ANY of these people that you are suggesting that we give money to.
June 5, 2008 at 10:05 AM #217402Participant“I personally think that this country should apologize for slavery and pay the descendants of slaves compensation.”
No offense, but anyone who believes in reparations for slavery is an idiot.
My grandparents were immigrants. They arrived long after slavery was abolished. I was born AFTER civil rights was passed. Why the f*** should I have to pay ANYTHING to people who are several generations removed from slavery?
“I’m sorry?” For what? I haven’t done anything to ANY of these people that you are suggesting that we give money to.
June 5, 2008 at 10:05 AM #217423Participant“I personally think that this country should apologize for slavery and pay the descendants of slaves compensation.”
No offense, but anyone who believes in reparations for slavery is an idiot.
My grandparents were immigrants. They arrived long after slavery was abolished. I was born AFTER civil rights was passed. Why the f*** should I have to pay ANYTHING to people who are several generations removed from slavery?
“I’m sorry?” For what? I haven’t done anything to ANY of these people that you are suggesting that we give money to.
June 5, 2008 at 10:05 AM #217451Participant“I personally think that this country should apologize for slavery and pay the descendants of slaves compensation.”
No offense, but anyone who believes in reparations for slavery is an idiot.
My grandparents were immigrants. They arrived long after slavery was abolished. I was born AFTER civil rights was passed. Why the f*** should I have to pay ANYTHING to people who are several generations removed from slavery?
“I’m sorry?” For what? I haven’t done anything to ANY of these people that you are suggesting that we give money to.
June 5, 2008 at 10:05 AM #217475Participant“I personally think that this country should apologize for slavery and pay the descendants of slaves compensation.”
No offense, but anyone who believes in reparations for slavery is an idiot.
My grandparents were immigrants. They arrived long after slavery was abolished. I was born AFTER civil rights was passed. Why the f*** should I have to pay ANYTHING to people who are several generations removed from slavery?
“I’m sorry?” For what? I haven’t done anything to ANY of these people that you are suggesting that we give money to.
June 5, 2008 at 10:44 AM #217354Anonymous
GuestSubmitted by trex on June 5, 2008 – 6:47am.
Anyone see the Catholic priest’s rant against Hillary in that church in Chicago? According to him, if you don’t give up your 401(k), all trappings of success, and give them to the black community you are just perpetuating racism.
Trex, is this the video you’re talking about?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfWnY5PC0CQ&feature=related
meadandale, you are part of this country, and as such, if reparations are to be paid, you will pay them one way or another.
June 5, 2008 at 10:44 AM #217442GuestSubmitted by trex on June 5, 2008 – 6:47am.
Anyone see the Catholic priest’s rant against Hillary in that church in Chicago? According to him, if you don’t give up your 401(k), all trappings of success, and give them to the black community you are just perpetuating racism.
Trex, is this the video you’re talking about?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfWnY5PC0CQ&feature=related
meadandale, you are part of this country, and as such, if reparations are to be paid, you will pay them one way or another.
June 5, 2008 at 10:44 AM #217464GuestSubmitted by trex on June 5, 2008 – 6:47am.
Anyone see the Catholic priest’s rant against Hillary in that church in Chicago? According to him, if you don’t give up your 401(k), all trappings of success, and give them to the black community you are just perpetuating racism.
Trex, is this the video you’re talking about?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfWnY5PC0CQ&feature=related
meadandale, you are part of this country, and as such, if reparations are to be paid, you will pay them one way or another.
June 5, 2008 at 10:44 AM #217491GuestSubmitted by trex on June 5, 2008 – 6:47am.
Anyone see the Catholic priest’s rant against Hillary in that church in Chicago? According to him, if you don’t give up your 401(k), all trappings of success, and give them to the black community you are just perpetuating racism.
Trex, is this the video you’re talking about?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfWnY5PC0CQ&feature=related
meadandale, you are part of this country, and as such, if reparations are to be paid, you will pay them one way or another.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.