who's owed more? natives for stolen land or blacks for forced free labor?

24567

Comments

  • mryounggun
    mryounggun Members Posts: 13,451 ✭✭✭✭✭
    All things being equal, I'd have to say black people. But in the interest of fairness, it wasn't just that native american landers were stolen. ? was way deeper than that.
  • The Lonious Monk
    The Lonious Monk Members Posts: 26,258 ✭✭✭✭✭
    gns wrote: »

    So i should get my history from the enemy
    U musta got all A's in school.


    If you think Black/Native relations boils down to "them having slaves so their the enemy," you don't really know what you're talking about so you should just fall back and stop talking. If that's the case everybody is the enemy including other blacks because every group of people on earth had some for of force labor system.

    jono wrote: »

    Considering a large contingent of African slaves were BOUGHT (not stolen or kidnapped) from Africa that changes everything. Its calle the slave TRADE for a reason.

    You can't deny the rights of people who don't have rights in the first place.

    Also Natives DID have rights (property rights) which make this an unequal argument. The Trail of Tears is literally the demolishing of their rights as legal contracts stated they had a right to the land they were forced from.

    Also Blacks DID have organisations set up by the government to assist post-slavery. The Freedman's Bureau is just one such organization, and it failed. The point being that freed slaves had an opportunity and it didn't work out.

    ? isn't nearly as cut and dry as folks are claiming it to be.

    Whether, those slaves had right or not at the time is irrelevant. American has already taken the stance that it wronged those people. If you admit wrong, then you automatically open yourself up to having to pay restitution.

    As for the Native rights, the laws you're referencing were created by the same entity that took those laws back. I don't know that what happened with the Trail of Tears was actually illegal. There was probably some legal ? pulled to make it possible. After all, Natives still do have their own sovereign land within the U.S.

    Anyway, you're right. It's not clear cut. I wasn't implying that. It's academic at the end of the day because both groups were screwed in a way that the U.S. will never really attempt to make amends for.
  • konceptjones
    konceptjones Guests, Members, Writer, Content Producer Posts: 13,139 ✭✭✭✭✭
    5th Letter wrote: »
    Indians been getting reparations for years, black people have yet to receive anything..

    No we haven't. Plain and simple. Add to that we're being systematically killed off through those "resources" you're talking about.

    https://www.courthousenews.com/tribe-sues-for-exposure-event-at-hospital/

    ^^^ This happened at my reservation. This wasn't the first "exposure event" and the IHS is riddled with similar complaints about their practices. Intentionally infecting Natives with everything from ? to Tuberculosis at "free clinics" ain't exactly getting reparations, and it is definitely intentional.

    Aside from that, nearly every dollar we have received from the government was fought for because of broken agreements between tribes and the US government (i.e. the recent $1B land settlement that no one in my family except my Grandmother got money from).

    Nah bruh, try again.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVYShOZkZGs
  • jono
    jono Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    gns wrote: »

    So i should get my history from the enemy
    U musta got all A's in school.


    If you think Black/Native relations boils down to "them having slaves so their the enemy," you don't really know what you're talking about so you should just fall back and stop talking. If that's the case everybody is the enemy including other blacks because every group of people on earth had some for of force labor system.

    jono wrote: »

    Considering a large contingent of African slaves were BOUGHT (not stolen or kidnapped) from Africa that changes everything. Its calle the slave TRADE for a reason.

    You can't deny the rights of people who don't have rights in the first place.

    Also Natives DID have rights (property rights) which make this an unequal argument. The Trail of Tears is literally the demolishing of their rights as legal contracts stated they had a right to the land they were forced from.

    Also Blacks DID have organisations set up by the government to assist post-slavery. The Freedman's Bureau is just one such organization, and it failed. The point being that freed slaves had an opportunity and it didn't work out.

    ? isn't nearly as cut and dry as folks are claiming it to be.

    Whether, those slaves had right or not at the time is irrelevant. American has already taken the stance that it wronged those people. If you admit wrong, then you automatically open yourself up to having to pay restitution.

    As for the Native rights, the laws you're referencing were created by the same entity that took those laws back. I don't know that what happened with the Trail of Tears was actually illegal. There was probably some legal ? pulled to make it possible. After all, Natives still do have their own sovereign land within the U.S.

    Anyway, you're right. It's not clear cut. I wasn't implying that. It's academic at the end of the day because both groups were screwed in a way that the U.S. will never really attempt to make amends for.

    Its very relevant actually. Slavery was legal. There were no rights to violate. To say it was wrong is not the same as saying it is illegal. Morally it is wrong but legally, it was fine.

    Also the actual government didn't own slaves, individuals within it did. The actual government DID commit the Trail of Tears as it was the force of the U.S. Army being brought down to violate the legal rights of individuals.

    They aren't the same.
  • konceptjones
    konceptjones Guests, Members, Writer, Content Producer Posts: 13,139 ✭✭✭✭✭
    gns wrote: »
    gns wrote: »
    gns wrote: »
    Negros win the 'who got it worse' Olympics 10 outta 10 times
    Even in the holocaust we some how found a way to get our ass killed over ? we aint een involved in
    Aint no ? suffered during slavery
    And indians had slaves themselves(so did other ? but u get my point)

    I don't think any of the Natives had a system of Chattel slavery though just to be clear. So the Native slavery and American slavery aren't really comparable.

    U aint ?
    U aint know how they treated us
    Shut up

    No but other people are injuns and know how they treated us and wrote books. Try picking up one from time to time.

    So i should get my history from the enemy
    U musta got all A's in school.
    Olorun22 wrote: »
    Native are owned more because it's their land and their numbers are low

    Black people are all over the world and we have a chance to turn it around but for the native they're done.

    They can never recover

    Low?
    U see all these ? messicans runnin around?!

    Aside from me, when was the last time you've met an Native American?

    When was the last time you've even SEEN an Native American outside of a movie or Youtube video?

    I'll wait...
  • The Lonious Monk
    The Lonious Monk Members Posts: 26,258 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jono wrote: »
    gns wrote: »

    So i should get my history from the enemy
    U musta got all A's in school.


    If you think Black/Native relations boils down to "them having slaves so their the enemy," you don't really know what you're talking about so you should just fall back and stop talking. If that's the case everybody is the enemy including other blacks because every group of people on earth had some for of force labor system.

    jono wrote: »

    Considering a large contingent of African slaves were BOUGHT (not stolen or kidnapped) from Africa that changes everything. Its calle the slave TRADE for a reason.

    You can't deny the rights of people who don't have rights in the first place.

    Also Natives DID have rights (property rights) which make this an unequal argument. The Trail of Tears is literally the demolishing of their rights as legal contracts stated they had a right to the land they were forced from.

    Also Blacks DID have organisations set up by the government to assist post-slavery. The Freedman's Bureau is just one such organization, and it failed. The point being that freed slaves had an opportunity and it didn't work out.

    ? isn't nearly as cut and dry as folks are claiming it to be.

    Whether, those slaves had right or not at the time is irrelevant. American has already taken the stance that it wronged those people. If you admit wrong, then you automatically open yourself up to having to pay restitution.

    As for the Native rights, the laws you're referencing were created by the same entity that took those laws back. I don't know that what happened with the Trail of Tears was actually illegal. There was probably some legal ? pulled to make it possible. After all, Natives still do have their own sovereign land within the U.S.

    Anyway, you're right. It's not clear cut. I wasn't implying that. It's academic at the end of the day because both groups were screwed in a way that the U.S. will never really attempt to make amends for.

    Its very relevant actually. Slavery was legal. There were no rights to violate. To say it was wrong is not the same as saying it is illegal. Morally it is wrong but legally, it was fine.

    Also the actual government didn't own slaves, individuals within it did. The actual government DID commit the Trail of Tears as it was the force of the U.S. Army being brought down to violate the legal rights of individuals.

    They aren't the same.

    That doesn't really have anything to do with what I said though. I never said slavery was legal. I said U.S. has officially admitted that it was wrong to have instituted and allowed slavery in this country. Whether, it was legal or not, the U.S. as a nation has stated that it did wrong by a segment of its population. If that's the case, the nation by its own admission owes blacks restitution. And no, the government didn't own slaves, but the government is responsible for allowing slavery to be a thing. When cases came up regarding escaped slaves, the government was the one that gave slave owners the thumbs up to take those slaves and approved of abusing slaves too. Basically, slavery was a law, and government agents enforced that law.

    And again, can you prove that America violated the legal rights of the Natives for the Trail of Tears. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying I don't know enough to say that the government didn't pull some legal ? so that what they were doing wasn't actually illegal.
  • 2stepz_ahead
    2stepz_ahead Guests, Members, Writer, Content Producer Posts: 32,324 ✭✭✭✭✭
    gns wrote: »
    gns wrote: »
    gns wrote: »
    Negros win the 'who got it worse' Olympics 10 outta 10 times
    Even in the holocaust we some how found a way to get our ass killed over ? we aint een involved in
    Aint no ? suffered during slavery
    And indians had slaves themselves(so did other ? but u get my point)

    I don't think any of the Natives had a system of Chattel slavery though just to be clear. So the Native slavery and American slavery aren't really comparable.

    U aint ?
    U aint know how they treated us
    Shut up

    No but other people are injuns and know how they treated us and wrote books. Try picking up one from time to time.

    So i should get my history from the enemy
    U musta got all A's in school.
    Olorun22 wrote: »
    Native are owned more because it's their land and their numbers are low

    Black people are all over the world and we have a chance to turn it around but for the native they're done.

    They can never recover

    Low?
    U see all these ? messicans runnin around?!

    Aside from me, when was the last time you've met an Native American?

    When was the last time you've even SEEN an Native American outside of a movie or Youtube video?

    I'll wait...

    my grandfather
  • jono
    jono Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2017
    jono wrote: »
    gns wrote: »

    So i should get my history from the enemy
    U musta got all A's in school.


    If you think Black/Native relations boils down to "them having slaves so their the enemy," you don't really know what you're talking about so you should just fall back and stop talking. If that's the case everybody is the enemy including other blacks because every group of people on earth had some for of force labor system.

    jono wrote: »

    Considering a large contingent of African slaves were BOUGHT (not stolen or kidnapped) from Africa that changes everything. Its calle the slave TRADE for a reason.

    You can't deny the rights of people who don't have rights in the first place.

    Also Natives DID have rights (property rights) which make this an unequal argument. The Trail of Tears is literally the demolishing of their rights as legal contracts stated they had a right to the land they were forced from.

    Also Blacks DID have organisations set up by the government to assist post-slavery. The Freedman's Bureau is just one such organization, and it failed. The point being that freed slaves had an opportunity and it didn't work out.

    ? isn't nearly as cut and dry as folks are claiming it to be.

    Whether, those slaves had right or not at the time is irrelevant. American has already taken the stance that it wronged those people. If you admit wrong, then you automatically open yourself up to having to pay restitution.

    As for the Native rights, the laws you're referencing were created by the same entity that took those laws back. I don't know that what happened with the Trail of Tears was actually illegal. There was probably some legal ? pulled to make it possible. After all, Natives still do have their own sovereign land within the U.S.

    Anyway, you're right. It's not clear cut. I wasn't implying that. It's academic at the end of the day because both groups were screwed in a way that the U.S. will never really attempt to make amends for.

    Its very relevant actually. Slavery was legal. There were no rights to violate. To say it was wrong is not the same as saying it is illegal. Morally it is wrong but legally, it was fine.

    Also the actual government didn't own slaves, individuals within it did. The actual government DID commit the Trail of Tears as it was the force of the U.S. Army being brought down to violate the legal rights of individuals.

    They aren't the same.

    That doesn't really have anything to do with what I said though. I never said slavery was legal. I said U.S. has officially admitted that it was wrong to have instituted and allowed slavery in this country. Whether, it was legal or not, the U.S. as a nation has stated that it did wrong by a segment of its population. If that's the case, the nation by its own admission owes blacks restitution. And no, the government didn't own slaves, but the government is responsible for allowing slavery to be a thing. When cases came up regarding escaped slaves, the government was the one that gave slave owners the thumbs up to take those slaves and approved of abusing slaves too. Basically, slavery was a law, and government agents enforced that law.

    And again, can you prove that America violated the legal rights of the Natives for the Trail of Tears. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying I don't know enough to say that the government didn't pull some legal ? so that what they were doing wasn't actually illegal.

    They had to enforce the law because slaves were considered property and could be bought, sold or stolen. In order to have property rights they have to be maintained and enforced which brings me to....


    The Supreme Court stated the Natives had rights to the land they inhabited. Andrew Jackson scoffed and sent the military in to force them out.

    If the underlined is valid, Its still a moral argument but not a legal one. You still can't conflate people exercising their legal rights with moral action.

    Its the same argument that happens in terms of environmental contamination. A company dumps something in the nearest lake, people get sick and the company claims it had a right to do so. Even if its immoral, its not illegal. Even IF you've found liable, you aren't going to find them liable for 100+ years of damages anyway.

    As I said in my first post, Reconstruction had some forms of restitution for slaves. Insufficient though they may be.
  • Olorun22
    Olorun22 Members Posts: 5,696 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Black people could have ended slavery a long time ago. I don't get this line of thinking that we had to stay slaves. We had blame in our own demise as we do today
  • The Lonious Monk
    The Lonious Monk Members Posts: 26,258 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jono wrote: »

    They had to enforce the law because slaves were considered property and could be bought, sold or stolen. In order to have property rights they have to be maintained and enforced which brings me to....


    The Supreme Court stated the Natives had rights to the land they inhabited. Andrew Jackson scoffed and sent the military in to force them out.

    If the underlined is valid, Its still a moral argument but not a legal one. You still can't conflate people exercising their legal rights with moral action.

    Its the same argument that happens in terms of environmental contamination. A company dumps something in the nearest lake, people get sick and the company claims it had a right to do so. Even if its immoral, its not illegal. Even IF you've found liable, you aren't going to find them liable for 100+ years of damages anyway.

    As I said in my first post, Reconstruction had some forms of restitution for slaves. Insufficient though they may be.

    You're right. I forgot that Jackson basically gave the Supreme Court the finger.
  • konceptjones
    konceptjones Guests, Members, Writer, Content Producer Posts: 13,139 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2017
    All of y'all on this "but slavery...." ? needs to remember a couple of things:

    1. There were thousands of Native tribes here in this coutnry. Very few (i.e. less than 10) held Africans as slaves. The Cherokee had more than any other tribe at approx 4600.

    2. After slavery was abolished, many of those Africans were assimilated into the tribes.

    You're trying to pin slavery on Natives as if the number of slaves held by free Black men didn't dwarf their numbers considerably. You're also forgetting that Black slave owners have been in this country since the first colonies were established (read more about men like Nat Butler) as well as Blacks that owned white indentured servants.

    Native Americans were also enslaved en masse in this country. Columbus was responsible for starting the Native slave trade in 1493 by capturing Natives and shipping them back to Spain. In only a few years time nearly a million Natives had been rounded up from the islands and Central America and sent to Spain to be sold as slaves but it didn't stop there. When the Spanish made their way into North America they enslaved Natives in huge numbers. Just as Africans supplied slaves to Europeans in exchange for goods or alliances with European governments, so did Native tribes here in America. NC, VA, SC, and LA were trading more Natives as slaves than they had African shipped in mainly through raiding and subsequently depleting Florida and Mississippi of it's Native population.

    That Natives couldn't be enslaved due to their love of freedom or whatever folks are saying these days is a dangerous myth that prevents anyone from realizing that Natives were enslaved here in the Americas for as long as honkies have been here.
  • konceptjones
    konceptjones Guests, Members, Writer, Content Producer Posts: 13,139 ✭✭✭✭✭
    gns wrote: »
    gns wrote: »
    gns wrote: »
    Negros win the 'who got it worse' Olympics 10 outta 10 times
    Even in the holocaust we some how found a way to get our ass killed over ? we aint een involved in
    Aint no ? suffered during slavery
    And indians had slaves themselves(so did other ? but u get my point)

    I don't think any of the Natives had a system of Chattel slavery though just to be clear. So the Native slavery and American slavery aren't really comparable.

    U aint ?
    U aint know how they treated us
    Shut up

    No but other people are injuns and know how they treated us and wrote books. Try picking up one from time to time.

    So i should get my history from the enemy
    U musta got all A's in school.
    Olorun22 wrote: »
    Native are owned more because it's their land and their numbers are low

    Black people are all over the world and we have a chance to turn it around but for the native they're done.

    They can never recover

    Low?
    U see all these ? messicans runnin around?!

    Aside from me, when was the last time you've met an Native American?

    When was the last time you've even SEEN an Native American outside of a movie or Youtube video?

    I'll wait...

    my grandfather

    So you're a Tribal man? What tribe you from?
  • blackrain
    blackrain Members, Moderators Posts: 27,269 Regulator
    5th Letter wrote: »
    Indians been getting reparations for years, black people have yet to receive anything..

    This is a bit disingenuous though because its not like its improved their condition
  • Will Munny
    Will Munny Members Posts: 30,199 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't think this thread has ever been done before in the IC.
  • D. Morgan
    D. Morgan Members Posts: 11,662 ✭✭✭✭✭
    fortyacres wrote: »
    fortyacres wrote: »
    why would you compare historical genocides ? thats silly

    is it really?

    I guess you skipped Jew class.

    they bring the ? up over anything..

    but ? must keep silent?

    not even a discussion?

    *in trump voice*

    sad

    Its silly from them (jews) and its silly from you

    you get nowhere by comparing tragedies. You can make a strong intelligent argument on what kind of reparations should or would African Americans receive without talking about other minority groups, its weak and counter productive.

    silly?

    unlike you. I can turn a "silly " discussion into a learning experience.

    you debating me about a question that can spark debate and lead elsewhere without thinking of a bigger picture is counter productive.

    even taking it smaller...

    why can't a simple question be asked without a high horse ? coming in?

    why does this question bother you?
    why didn't you just ignore it?

    who's comparing tragedies? I said what was owed from what was stolen for free.

    Jews still want money from Nazis from what was stolen, am I right?

    so, what's your point again?

    91f6dd68daab71e581e602a420a09114.jpg
  • blackgod813
    blackgod813 Members Posts: 9,577 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Olorun22 wrote: »
    Native are owned more because it's their land and their numbers are low.

    Black people are all over the world and we have a chance to turn it around but for the native they're done.

    They can never recover

    My ? said its over!#!! Cot dam u took hope away...second theres seems to be a native click on this site...third is a mesicann indian i mean they gangs gets indian tatoos wats a native
    ..wat blood line is that mongloid idk :'(
  • 2stepz_ahead
    2stepz_ahead Guests, Members, Writer, Content Producer Posts: 32,324 ✭✭✭✭✭
    gns wrote: »
    gns wrote: »
    gns wrote: »
    Negros win the 'who got it worse' Olympics 10 outta 10 times
    Even in the holocaust we some how found a way to get our ass killed over ? we aint een involved in
    Aint no ? suffered during slavery
    And indians had slaves themselves(so did other ? but u get my point)

    I don't think any of the Natives had a system of Chattel slavery though just to be clear. So the Native slavery and American slavery aren't really comparable.

    U aint ?
    U aint know how they treated us
    Shut up

    No but other people are injuns and know how they treated us and wrote books. Try picking up one from time to time.

    So i should get my history from the enemy
    U musta got all A's in school.
    Olorun22 wrote: »
    Native are owned more because it's their land and their numbers are low

    Black people are all over the world and we have a chance to turn it around but for the native they're done.

    They can never recover

    Low?
    U see all these ? messicans runnin around?!

    Aside from me, when was the last time you've met an Native American?

    When was the last time you've even SEEN an Native American outside of a movie or Youtube video?

    I'll wait...

    my grandfather

    So you're a Tribal man? What tribe you from?

    I'm ? my tribe is North philly...

    my grandfather came from crow
  • 2stepz_ahead
    2stepz_ahead Guests, Members, Writer, Content Producer Posts: 32,324 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2017
    D. Morgan wrote: »
    fortyacres wrote: »
    fortyacres wrote: »
    why would you compare historical genocides ? thats silly

    is it really?

    I guess you skipped Jew class.

    they bring the ? up over anything..

    but ? must keep silent?

    not even a discussion?

    *in trump voice*

    sad

    Its silly from them (jews) and its silly from you

    you get nowhere by comparing tragedies. You can make a strong intelligent argument on what kind of reparations should or would African Americans receive without talking about other minority groups, its weak and counter productive.

    silly?

    unlike you. I can turn a "silly " discussion into a learning experience.

    you debating me about a question that can spark debate and lead elsewhere without thinking of a bigger picture is counter productive.

    even taking it smaller...

    why can't a simple question be asked without a high horse ? coming in?

    why does this question bother you?
    why didn't you just ignore it?

    who's comparing tragedies? I said what was owed from what was stolen for free.

    Jews still want money from Nazis from what was stolen, am I right?

    so, what's your point again?

    91f6dd68daab71e581e602a420a09114.jpg

    you ain't funny ? ...stop bringing uo old ? ...


    it's about this ? ...
  • konceptjones
    konceptjones Guests, Members, Writer, Content Producer Posts: 13,139 ✭✭✭✭✭
    gns wrote: »
    gns wrote: »
    gns wrote: »
    Negros win the 'who got it worse' Olympics 10 outta 10 times
    Even in the holocaust we some how found a way to get our ass killed over ? we aint een involved in
    Aint no ? suffered during slavery
    And indians had slaves themselves(so did other ? but u get my point)

    I don't think any of the Natives had a system of Chattel slavery though just to be clear. So the Native slavery and American slavery aren't really comparable.

    U aint ?
    U aint know how they treated us
    Shut up

    No but other people are injuns and know how they treated us and wrote books. Try picking up one from time to time.

    So i should get my history from the enemy
    U musta got all A's in school.
    Olorun22 wrote: »
    Native are owned more because it's their land and their numbers are low

    Black people are all over the world and we have a chance to turn it around but for the native they're done.

    They can never recover

    Low?
    U see all these ? messicans runnin around?!

    Aside from me, when was the last time you've met an Native American?

    When was the last time you've even SEEN an Native American outside of a movie or Youtube video?

    I'll wait...

    my grandfather

    So you're a Tribal man? What tribe you from?

    I'm ? my tribe is North philly...

    my grandfather came from crow

    If your grandfather was 100% Crow, that would make you 25% and eligible to be a tribal member as the Crow recognize down to 1/4 quantum blood. In some cases they'll accept you with even less than that.

    Get your paperwork tight bruh and welcome to the family.
  • gns
    gns Members Posts: 21,285 ✭✭✭✭✭
    gns wrote: »
    gns wrote: »
    gns wrote: »
    Negros win the 'who got it worse' Olympics 10 outta 10 times
    Even in the holocaust we some how found a way to get our ass killed over ? we aint een involved in
    Aint no ? suffered during slavery
    And indians had slaves themselves(so did other ? but u get my point)

    I don't think any of the Natives had a system of Chattel slavery though just to be clear. So the Native slavery and American slavery aren't really comparable.

    U aint ?
    U aint know how they treated us
    Shut up

    No but other people are injuns and know how they treated us and wrote books. Try picking up one from time to time.

    So i should get my history from the enemy
    U musta got all A's in school.
    Olorun22 wrote: »
    Native are owned more because it's their land and their numbers are low

    Black people are all over the world and we have a chance to turn it around but for the native they're done.

    They can never recover

    Low?
    U see all these ? messicans runnin around?!

    Aside from me, when was the last time you've met an Native American?

    When was the last time you've even SEEN an Native American outside of a movie or Youtube video?

    I'll wait...

    By home depot yesterday
    Messicans are native americans u cant tell me ?

    Y u think their birthrate is so high? Just like baby boomers after WW2
    Messicans multiply like nobodies business because of being massacred by the pilgrims and ?
  • The Lonious Monk
    The Lonious Monk Members Posts: 26,258 ✭✭✭✭✭
    gns wrote: »
    gns wrote: »
    gns wrote: »
    gns wrote: »
    Negros win the 'who got it worse' Olympics 10 outta 10 times
    Even in the holocaust we some how found a way to get our ass killed over ? we aint een involved in
    Aint no ? suffered during slavery
    And indians had slaves themselves(so did other ? but u get my point)

    I don't think any of the Natives had a system of Chattel slavery though just to be clear. So the Native slavery and American slavery aren't really comparable.

    U aint ?
    U aint know how they treated us
    Shut up

    No but other people are injuns and know how they treated us and wrote books. Try picking up one from time to time.

    So i should get my history from the enemy
    U musta got all A's in school.
    Olorun22 wrote: »
    Native are owned more because it's their land and their numbers are low

    Black people are all over the world and we have a chance to turn it around but for the native they're done.

    They can never recover

    Low?
    U see all these ? messicans runnin around?!

    Aside from me, when was the last time you've met an Native American?

    When was the last time you've even SEEN an Native American outside of a movie or Youtube video?

    I'll wait...

    By home depot yesterday
    Messicans are native americans u cant tell me ?

    Y u think their birthrate is so high? Just like baby boomers after WW2
    Messicans multiply like nobodies business because of being massacred by the pilgrims and ?

    Most Mexicans have Native blood, but most of them are mixed. On top of that, they probably treat their indigenous people (the ones that never bought into Spanish culture) arguably worse than the U.S. treats the Natives here.
  • NoCompetition
    NoCompetition Members Posts: 3,661 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2017
    There are some things about the reparations subject I have thought about. Its not something I think about too much because my thing is get mine and try to take advantage of what is here so Im not the type to put energy into that. But a few things. Who would get them and how? How much? Who can say what is owed?Who knows what somebody's particular ancestor went through? etc. I know of many black people who owned big land back then. Im talking great great grandparents and even further back. Owned more than their offspring now...so who is that on? Or at least who has at least their part of the "blame".
    So just anybody "Black" would get it? Eh, I dont hold my breath on that. So what would the proving process be? How do you assess a dollar amount? What time period are we talking? etc. People say no one from way back who may have been victimized and due it are alive today. Not that Im against it but just some considerations about the subject. No problem with those who may be exploring/promoting this issue.
  • Maximus Rex
    Maximus Rex Members Posts: 6,354 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2017
    Who are owed more Indians or blacks?

    1672 - Legislators also offer a reward to Indians who capture escaped slaves and return them to a justice of the peace.
    http://www.history.org/history/teaching/slavelaw.cfm

    Cherokee Nation Expels Descendants Of Tribe’s Black Slaves

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/cherokee-nations-expels-d_n_936930.html

    After a long legal fight, the Cherokee nation ousted thousands of descendants of black slaves who had long been official members of the tribe.

    The Cherokee Supreme Court (the tribe is a sovereign nation) ruled this week a 2007 constitutional amendment that required Cherokee blood in order to belong to the tribe could stand.

    “This is racism and apartheid in the 21st century,” Marilyn Vann, the lead plaintiff in the case and a freedman leader, told Reuters.

    The controversy over the freedmen’s status is at least in part about money. The Cherokee nation, the second-largest Native American tribe in the country, receives money from the federal government and earns money from its stake in the lucrative gambling industry, which totaled $26.4 billion for all tribes in 2009. In the run-up to the 2007 amendment vote, some proponents of expelling the freedmen suggested that more blacks might apply for membership to receive tribal money.

    In the 1800s, the U.S. government passed a law forcing members of the Cherokee nation from their ancestral lands in the Deep South to make room for white settlers. The Cherokee — as well as their black slaves — were forcibly marched west of the Mississippi River to the Oklahoma territory during the “Trail of Tears,” resulting in the deaths of thousands of Native Americans.

    After the Civil War, the Cherokee formally admitted by treaty their slaves’ descendants into the nation.

    Before the 2007 passage of the amendment, some descendants of the freedmen said the vote on their status within the nation expressed a desire by many tribe members to paper over their slave-owning past. But the tribe’s leadership disagreed. “It’s a basic, inherent right to determine our own citizenry,” a Cherokee leader told the Washington Post. “We paid very dearly for those rights.”


    You tell me.
  • konceptjones
    konceptjones Guests, Members, Writer, Content Producer Posts: 13,139 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Who are owed more Indians or blacks?

    1672 - Legislators also offer a reward to Indians who capture escaped slaves and return them to a justice of the peace.
    http://www.history.org/history/teaching/slavelaw.cfm

    Cherokee Nation Expels Descendants Of Tribe’s Black Slaves

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/cherokee-nations-expels-d_n_936930.html

    After a long legal fight, the Cherokee nation ousted thousands of descendants of black slaves who had long been official members of the tribe.

    The Cherokee Supreme Court (the tribe is a sovereign nation) ruled this week a 2007 constitutional amendment that required Cherokee blood in order to belong to the tribe could stand.

    “This is racism and apartheid in the 21st century,” Marilyn Vann, the lead plaintiff in the case and a freedman leader, told Reuters.

    The controversy over the freedmen’s status is at least in part about money. The Cherokee nation, the second-largest Native American tribe in the country, receives money from the federal government and earns money from its stake in the lucrative gambling industry, which totaled $26.4 billion for all tribes in 2009. In the run-up to the 2007 amendment vote, some proponents of expelling the freedmen suggested that more blacks might apply for membership to receive tribal money.

    In the 1800s, the U.S. government passed a law forcing members of the Cherokee nation from their ancestral lands in the Deep South to make room for white settlers. The Cherokee — as well as their black slaves — were forcibly marched west of the Mississippi River to the Oklahoma territory during the “Trail of Tears,” resulting in the deaths of thousands of Native Americans.

    After the Civil War, the Cherokee formally admitted by treaty their slaves’ descendants into the nation.

    Before the 2007 passage of the amendment, some descendants of the freedmen said the vote on their status within the nation expressed a desire by many tribe members to paper over their slave-owning past. But the tribe’s leadership disagreed. “It’s a basic, inherent right to determine our own citizenry,” a Cherokee leader told the Washington Post. “We paid very dearly for those rights.”


    You tell me.

    yes, because all Native Americans were Cherokee...

    b04005c7d15d094a.jpg
  • 2stepz_ahead
    2stepz_ahead Guests, Members, Writer, Content Producer Posts: 32,324 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Who are owed more Indians or blacks?

    1672 - Legislators also offer a reward to Indians who capture escaped slaves and return them to a justice of the peace.
    http://www.history.org/history/teaching/slavelaw.cfm

    Cherokee Nation Expels Descendants Of Tribe’s Black Slaves

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/cherokee-nations-expels-d_n_936930.html

    After a long legal fight, the Cherokee nation ousted thousands of descendants of black slaves who had long been official members of the tribe.

    The Cherokee Supreme Court (the tribe is a sovereign nation) ruled this week a 2007 constitutional amendment that required Cherokee blood in order to belong to the tribe could stand.

    “This is racism and apartheid in the 21st century,” Marilyn Vann, the lead plaintiff in the case and a freedman leader, told Reuters.

    The controversy over the freedmen’s status is at least in part about money. The Cherokee nation, the second-largest Native American tribe in the country, receives money from the federal government and earns money from its stake in the lucrative gambling industry, which totaled $26.4 billion for all tribes in 2009. In the run-up to the 2007 amendment vote, some proponents of expelling the freedmen suggested that more blacks might apply for membership to receive tribal money.

    In the 1800s, the U.S. government passed a law forcing members of the Cherokee nation from their ancestral lands in the Deep South to make room for white settlers. The Cherokee — as well as their black slaves — were forcibly marched west of the Mississippi River to the Oklahoma territory during the “Trail of Tears,” resulting in the deaths of thousands of Native Americans.

    After the Civil War, the Cherokee formally admitted by treaty their slaves’ descendants into the nation.

    Before the 2007 passage of the amendment, some descendants of the freedmen said the vote on their status within the nation expressed a desire by many tribe members to paper over their slave-owning past. But the tribe’s leadership disagreed. “It’s a basic, inherent right to determine our own citizenry,” a Cherokee leader told the Washington Post. “We paid very dearly for those rights.”


    You tell me.

    yes, because all Native Americans were Cherokee...

    b04005c7d15d094a.jpg

    you can't say that, eagle feather