Do you support reparations for blacks?

Shaka did a pretty good job in displacing up to 25% of the sub saharan people. . Bottom line-no white today owes a penny to any black alive today.

 

Are you saying Japanese Americans should not have been given reparations for incarceration during WWII? Was it "systemic racism in governance"?

 

The displacement in that part of the continent was happening long before Shaka came to power. Portuguese, Boer and Arab slave raids were already under way long before. Shaka Zulu merely came through and recruited all of the dispersed kingdoms to create a force big enough to eventually overthrow white rule in southern Africa.

It matters not whether you or any white decide reparations are due, the debt will be there forever until you accept Jesus as your lord and saviour.

 

Apparently it's ok to pay reparations as long as it's not to the eternal enemy, the Blackman. Idk why white folks hate black folks so much, it's always bemused me...

 

I made no representation. This thread is not about Japanese folks. I don't know a lot about the details of that, but in general I think anyone who is wronged has the right to seek restitution or reparation.

 

Black folks, white folks, Japanese folks... they are all just folks to me, one no different than the other. All should be treated equally under the law.

 

I'm not interested.

 

Of course not.

 

Do you really think that all White people hate Black people with no exceptions?

My experience in the US Military and living in predominantly Black neighborhoods has been otherwise .

Thanks,

 

Of course not, you and I are living proof.

 

You don’t know much about it? It’s pretty straightforward. Japanese American families were placed in internment camps during WWII. They got an apology from President Reagan and $20,000 in reparations because of the systemic racism by the government.

Your opinion is no reparations for African Americans who suffered system racism by the government for what, 300 years, so I wondered what your opinion was in the case of the Japanese Americans. You say the wronged have a right to reparations. So, the Japanese American were wronged and the African Americans were not?

 

shaka never had any real contact nor conflict with white settlers. his successor (and murderer) Dingane did and was crushed by forces led by Boer Hero Pretorious. The first real battle was at Blood river in 1838 where Dingane violated a truce with Trekker Piet Retief and murdered him and a bunch of trekkers. Dingane's warriors then slaughtered a bunch of women and children. Pretorious took command of the voortrekkers and established a wagon laager that the Zulu Impis attacked. Pretorious's men destroyed the Zulu regiments, killing thousands while the suffered a few wounded. The zulu tactic of closing to inches with their enemy and stabbing with short spears was ineffective when the enemy as well armed with rifled muskets and bayonets. The Boers also had double barrel shotguns, loaded with buckshot which was brutally devastating against the massed zulu warriors.

 

Those reparations were paid directly to people who had themselves been interned, weren't they? Were any paid to descendants who were not themselves interned? Do you think an analogy would be that the great grandchildren of those Japanese who had been interned all those years ago would be able to justify claims to reparations for what was done to their ancestors?

Again, the Japanese Americans who received the reparations were those who were directly harmed by the actions of the government. Not their descendants. Any African American who is similarly harmed should seek restitution.

Black people who lived through segregation and Jim Crow, for instance, certainly might have a claim, and could plausibly seek reparations. Any black person who is affected by systemic racism today can file a lawsuit and gain "reparations" in the form of a settlement, and have the offending law changed.

The OP asked a simple one line question: "Do you support reparations for blacks?" To me, this implies "all blacks". We are probably not going to mail checks to every black person in the country, simply because they're black. If individual blacks, or an action class of them, or all of them, can show direct harm done to them by virtue of being descended from slaves, then they have every right to seek restitution. This would proceed through the court system, not be enshrined in law. Of course, they would have to show how they were harmed, not just be a member of the class.

My premise is simple: Any law passed that benefits or penalizes one racial group and not others, is by definition, systemic racism. I will always oppose such laws because our governance should be seeking to be more colorblind... not less.

 

My point was not whether or not Shaka fought the Boers, it was that he wasn't responsible for the dispersal or fragmentation of the African kingdoms. That was initiated by the Europeans and Arabs. Shaka came through and recruited these lost tribes and United them against the common enemy, the white invaders, eventually wiping out all of the white rulers, despite the whites having demonic powers like gatlin guns, praise Yahweh. The most glorious victory imaginable

 

bullshit-Shaka never engaged in any armed conflict of any measurable amount with the Boers nor the English. At Blood River, the Boers crushed Dingane's army. 41 years later, the Zulu wiped out a British Column at Isandlwana, but a couple days later, Lt Chard and his outnumbered men at Rorke's Drift, the British defended the outpost successfully, killing several hundred Zulus while losing only about 20. Later in that campaign, the Zulus charged british machine guns at Ulundi and again, the Brits lost a few, and the Zulus lost hundreds.

 

Perhaps I didn't word it correctly, the Zulu eventually defeated the whites, not Shaka himself. You've already contradicted yourself by saying that Shaka was responsible for the mass displacement while never meeting a white settler. An impossible feat, much like the white man's attempt to commit genocide on the entire continent.

 

So a group that has been asking for reparations for over 100 years is SOL. The mule has died and the acreage is now a strip mall.
But our opinions are not that divergent........please read #196

 

he displaced native populations in areas that had almost no white colonization . read Leonard Thompson's "Oxford History of South Africa" (a professor of mine many years ago)

 

I read 196. In a nutshell, your solution to systemic racism is more systemic racism. SMH

People who are wronged shouldn't ask for reparations, they should sue for them. If their claim has merit, they will get paid AND they will eliminate the racism they suffered from the system.

More colorblind governance... not less.

 

To be honest I'm surprised that hasn't happened already. During the Obama administration the Justice Department would invite lawsuits against the government by various groups and non profits and then reach a settlement in which these groups got policy concessions and cash. No legislation required, just a "sorry, we're just following the courts ruling."

If reparations happens, that is probably how it would happen since currently no bill like that could pass the House and Senate.

 

Japanes-American reparations were paid to the people who personally experienced the injustice. No black american living today was ever a slave and no white American living today was ever a slave owner. No reparations.

 

Youre asking me to read a book written by a white man during the apartheid era?

No thanks, those mythical histories have been utterly debunked as eurocentric nonesense.

The Zulu was a tiny little kingdom compared to other native African kingdoms in the region. What Shaka did was take in refugees from the south, west and north who were escaping slavers. The white settlers north and south were slave colonies that built up enough wealth to be able to colonize the entire region in the aftermath of Shaka's death. This led to apartheid which only ended 50 years ago and now the Zulus run South Africa, a great story.

 

"Brevity is the soul of wit!" -- William Shakespeare, "Hamlet". Thank you!

 

So your answer is African Americans who are members of families that have been here before civil rights legislation should bring a class action suit against the US government and all states that violated the civil rights of their families and passed race based laws. That bird will not fly.

 

Why not? This is the United States, where anybody can sue anybody else for any reason whatever! It doesn't always mean that you win, but if the whole idea of riding the merry-go-round is to snag the golden ring, why not jump on one of the horses and and go for it? Like Bob Dylan said, "When you ain't got nothin', you got nothin' to lose."