Movatterモバイル変換

Is there a case that Black Africa corrupted European Whites, who’d mostly got rid of slavery in Europe, with the lure of cheap labor and mastery over other humans?
 

Replies: @JackOH

Mr. Unz has enabled HTML in the comments:

italicize: text
embolden: text
strike through: text
offset quotations:

text
 

Replies: @95Theses

vinteuil, I've sometimes wondered if slavery as such is the actual grievance of some American Blacks, or is it the sale of enslaved African Blacks by their African Black owners to a strange people, European Whites, and the subsequent transportation to a strange non-African land, the American colonies?

Seems to me if slavery is the actual grievance, there ought to be similar "reparations" claims lodged against the descendants of African Black slave owners. Some sort of shared culpability deal. There are no such "reparations" claims being lodged against African governments, AFAIK. Likewise with the sale of enslaved African Blacks---those Africans offering their slaves appear to be off the hook. Likewise, Black African slave owners knowingly sold their slaves to European Whites, a strange non-Black people, and knew their slaves would be transported to a strange country. Still, Black Africa is off the hook.

If African Black slave owners had sold African slaves to Black American farmers, just as a thought experiment, would we hear any talk at all of "reparations", "legacy of slavery", and all that?

What I'm suggesting is the argument for "reparations" may be intrinsically anti-White racist, or at least deeply flawed, by failure to include Black Africa.

I've also wondered whether Portuguese or Dutch traders working the African coast were somehow arm-twisted into buying slaves. Is there a case that Black Africa corrupted European Whites, who'd mostly got rid of slavery in Europe, with the lure of cheap labor and mastery over other humans? Is it even possible to think of European Whites as victims of the slave trade?

Replies: @Anonymous, @vinteuil

Off topic, but how do you embed hyperlinks into your comments? I had this pretty well mastered when I was using Disqus, but I don't see anything on UR even close to that in the above comment box options – as in, say,bold,italics, or blockquotes.

Care to share? Thanks!

Replies: @Autochthon

vinteuil, I've sometimes wondered if slavery as such is the actual grievance of some American Blacks, or is it the sale of enslaved African Blacks by their African Black owners to a strange people, European Whites, and the subsequent transportation to a strange non-African land, the American colonies?

Seems to me if slavery is the actual grievance, there ought to be similar "reparations" claims lodged against the descendants of African Black slave owners. Some sort of shared culpability deal. There are no such "reparations" claims being lodged against African governments, AFAIK. Likewise with the sale of enslaved African Blacks---those Africans offering their slaves appear to be off the hook. Likewise, Black African slave owners knowingly sold their slaves to European Whites, a strange non-Black people, and knew their slaves would be transported to a strange country. Still, Black Africa is off the hook.

If African Black slave owners had sold African slaves to Black American farmers, just as a thought experiment, would we hear any talk at all of "reparations", "legacy of slavery", and all that?

What I'm suggesting is the argument for "reparations" may be intrinsically anti-White racist, or at least deeply flawed, by failure to include Black Africa.

I've also wondered whether Portuguese or Dutch traders working the African coast were somehow arm-twisted into buying slaves. Is there a case that Black Africa corrupted European Whites, who'd mostly got rid of slavery in Europe, with the lure of cheap labor and mastery over other humans? Is it even possible to think of European Whites as victims of the slave trade?

Replies: @Anonymous, @vinteuil

Gah! I ran out of time to edit in my effort to add an illustrative example:

Many, many corporations do not give their employees Veterans' Day off (some not even Memorial Day!), but those same employers would never dream of not shutting down for Martin Luther King, Jr. Day – in part because they know full well the savagery it would unleash.

Likewise, compare how many sponsor and participate in the recent surge of parades and suchcelebrating homosexual pride to how many employers support and participate in, say, parades or ceremonies for Veterans' Day (or even Memorial Day, or Independence Day).

Replies: @95Theses

Thanks for this post. Read the larger excerpt and was astounded by the writer's honesty. Will buy the book and give copies for free.

Replies: @95Theses

Lies, damned lies, and sadistics.

Now there's a bumper sticker for you.

Replies: @Desiderius

Replies: @Anonymous, @britishbrainsize

That's just serendipitous public relations for them ("Say, Linda in HR noticed that some ten per cent of our employees are veterans; let's incorporate that into an advertising campaign about how swell we are!") which is not the same thing as the proactive activity regarding other groups ("We here at Megalocorp have a woke mandate to 'do better on diversity' so we are striving to increase hiring of persons of many colours by fifteen per cent in the next five years, and ensure at least three females are on the board of directors. We will also be shoveling money to the United Negro College Fund, La Raza, the National Organisation for Women, the Council for American-Isalmic Relations, and the Man-Boy Love Association – fifty million dollars to each!") Some such outfits are True Believers; others cynics playing the required protection money to the hustlers – but they are doing it in either case. You won't see anything approaching those efforts to employ veterans, acknowledge them, or donate to causes supporting them, outside niche outfits like Black Rifle Coffee.

Replies: @Autochthon

I'm not sure if there is A/A granted, but I've seen major corporations like Starbucks and Walmart run advertising campaigns about how they are hiring veterans. I would guess that perhaps 1/4th or more of the veterans are also PeeOhCee and eligible for other A/A, and something like 10% of the military is female IIRC.

Replies: @Autochthon

As Muhammad Ali said after visiting Zaire, “Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat.”

Replies: @vinteuil

Keith Richburg comes to mind. Here is an excerpt from his 1997 book covering his experiences in Africa as a reporter for theWashington Post during the early 1990s,Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa. It's pretty powerful account:

Revulsion. Sorrow. Pity at the monumental waste of human life. They all come close, but don't quite capture what I really feel. It's a sentiment that began nagging me soon after I first set foot in Africa in late 1991. And it's a gnawing feeling that kept coming back to me as bodies kept piling up, as the insanity of Africa deepened. It's a feeling that pained me to admit, a sentiment that, when uttered aloud, might come across as callous, self-obessed, even racist.

And yet I know exactly this feeling that haunts me; I've just been too embarrassed to say it. So let me drop the charade and put it as simply as I know how:There but for the grace of God go I.

You see, I was seeing all of this horror a bit differently because of the color of my skin. I am an American, but a black man, a descendant of slaves brought from Africa. When I see these nameless, faceless, anonymous bodies washing over a waterfall or piled up on the back of trucks, what I see most is that they look like me.

Sometime, maybe four hundred or so years ago, one of my ancestors was taken from his village, probably by a local chieftain. He was shackled in leg irons, kept in a holding pen or a dark pit, possibly at Goree Island off the coast of Senegal. And then he was put in the crowded, filthy cargo hold of a ship for the long and treacherous voyage across the Atlantic to the New World.

Many of the slaves died on that voyage. But not my ancestor. Maybe it was because he was strong, maybe just stubborn, or maybe he had an irrepressible will to live. But he survived, and ended up in forced slavery working on plantations in the Caribbean. Generations on down the line, one of his descendants was taken to South Carolina. Finally, a more recent descendant, my father, moved to Detroit to find a job in an auto plant during the Second World War.

And so it was that I came to be born in Detroit and that thirty-five years later, a black man born in white America, I was in Africa, birthplace of my ancestors, standing at the edge of a river not as an African but as an American journalist – a mere spectator – watching the bloated bodies of black Africans cascading over a waterfall. And that's when I thought about how, if things had been different, I might have been one of them – or might have met some similar anonymous fate in one of the countless ongoing civil wars or tribal clashes on this brutal continent. And so I thank God my ancestor survived that voyage.

— Keith Richburg,Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa, p. xxi–xxii
 

Replies: @Proud Infidel

Replies: @J.Ross, @anonymous, @95Theses

As if there could possibly be reliable sadistics, er, statistics.

Replies: @Reg Cæsar

A bit off-topic, but I wonder if this has anything to do with the increasing popularity of sadomasochism?

Replies: @Desiderius

The Columbian discovery turned out to be a massive scheme for replacing the Native American population of large parts of the Americas (virtually all of the islands) with Africans.
 

Blacks have been the benificiary of the most undeserved population expansion in world history.

Usually you get earn a big population expansion by beating the some other guys in warfare--taking their land and their women and spreading your genes. But sub-saharan Africans got an incredible demographic expansion by ... having a slave society, being primitive enough to be easily enslaved and piggy backing on the colonization done by Europeans.

Huge own goal by Euros. Huge undeserved win for blacks.

And has a single black ever thanked us? Said, "man we owe you guys ... big time!"

Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard, @vinteuil, @Diversity Heretic, @95Theses

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-panicked-reaction-to-students-fight-leaves-14-staffers-off-the-job-at-toronto-school

Panicked reaction to students' fight leaves 14 staffers off the job at Toronto school

The Toronto District School Board’s panicked handling of a fight between two Grade 7 students has left their school, so good it’s known internationally as the public equivalent of a posh private school, near ruin.

At last count, eight school staff — senior administrators and teachers — at Glenview Senior Public School have been put on “home assignment” or “administrative leave,” interchangeable terms the school board uses for temporary paid suspensions.

An additional six staff are on personal or stress leave...

...what happened at this midtown Toronto public school is not a fairy tale; it’s a cautionary story of a school board that has collapsed under the weight of its own political correctness...

The girl’s mother is suing the board for $1.5 million, alleging the TDSB knew the girl had “been the target of bullying, harassment and assaults by a specific White student” and “racist verbal attacks,” and failed to protect her.

But the girl involved came to Glenview with some baggage of her own: She’d been twice suspended at Glen Park elementary school, once for bullying a boy about his sexuality and allegedly using a homophobic and anti-Semitic slur, according to the boy’s parents.

More important is that the girl’s mother, whom the National Post is identifying only as T.Q., had earned a reputation at the school as a terrifying force...
 

Glenview Senior Public School is nestled in the heart of Lawrence Park, an uptown, upscale Toronto neighbourhood known for its winding tree-lined streets, its well-appointed homes and its affluent, educated residents, among them: doctors, lawyers, engineers and bankers. https://nationalpost.com/posted-toronto/joe-oconnor-occupy-toronto-assignment-has-parents-concerned-school-is-indoctrinating-the-kids
 

[The cuck white principal] Sirois sent home a letter to parents, acknowledging the gaps in procedures and apologizing, and admitting anti-black racism exists in the school.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-no-one-knows-how-to-fight-the-hysteria-of-this-kind-of-asymmetric-warfare
 

Replies: @95Theses

idk ... Coco’s voice is well within normal girl range, perhaps a bit on the low side but rather pleasant overall. Her mannerisms are quite feminine, sweet, even coquettish. The long fake braids are unfortunate because it only draws attention to her scalp where her natural hair growth looks sparse. If she got a chiseled nose like Halle Berry perhaps Hollywood would come calling.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYI_-QNCgEU/Wdp56I160uI/AAAAAAAND3o/EITSbo7O_0AztSlhYXRsgrLceG_aZqc6wCLcBGAs/s400/a.png

Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

The Columbian discovery turned out to be a massive scheme for replacing the Native American population of large parts of the Americas (virtually all of the islands) with Africans.
 

Blacks have been the benificiary of the most undeserved population expansion in world history.

Usually you get earn a big population expansion by beating the some other guys in warfare--taking their land and their women and spreading your genes. But sub-saharan Africans got an incredible demographic expansion by ... having a slave society, being primitive enough to be easily enslaved and piggy backing on the colonization done by Europeans.

Huge own goal by Euros. Huge undeserved win for blacks.

And has a single black ever thanked us? Said, "man we owe you guys ... big time!"

Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard, @vinteuil, @Diversity Heretic, @95Theses

I am sure you would agree that 'Guilt' leaves much to be desired as a specific answer to why the Black Man is attributed Moral Superiority in US culture.

I would point to the case of the Amerindian Red Man by way of contrast. The Red Man gets comparatively little respect in US culture. If 'guilt' over the relatively minor and brief historical experience of Subsaharan slavery in some areas of North America in the 18th century* and early-mid 19th century were the answer, then the Red men and women among us would be elevated to the position of gods,far morally superior even to our sacralized Blacks, considering that their fate is so far worse than that of Blacks, as we Europeans repossessed an entire continent from the former, rather than skimming off a small percent of a few African tribes and working them for a brief historical period.

Yet guilt over Amerindian displacement, while it exists, is always less than that for Blacks. There is something else going on here.

___________

* Subsaharan chattel slavery in the lowland areas of the southern British colonies in North America only really got going, in earnest (in 19th-century-recognizable form), during the early 18th century (earliest origins in the 1690s due to a White labor shortage), and 'institutionalized,' as they say, by the mid-18th century, becoming a problem that ended up solved by force of arms a century or so later.

The median arrival date for African slaves is likely 18th century Q3. The average Black American of entirely slave-ancestry has a good deal more years of post-1865 free ancestry (potentially 165 years, as of today, factoring in the small-% of Free Blacks and the slaves freed during the war before 1865) than years of pre-1865 slave ancestry (potentially <100 years, depending on when the median arrival exactly was; it cannot realistically be over 120 years).

Replies: @nebulafox, @SFG

Pragmatically speaking, slavery was a big mistake and now you seem to be stuck with its products. But it's also significant that basically everyone else has been permitted to forget about their slaver past.

Replies: @guest, @vinteuil, @S. Anonyia, @nebulafox

I am sure you would agree that 'Guilt' leaves much to be desired as a specific answer to why the Black Man is attributed Moral Superiority in US culture.

I would point to the case of the Amerindian Red Man by way of contrast. The Red Man gets comparatively little respect in US culture. If 'guilt' over the relatively minor and brief historical experience of Subsaharan slavery in some areas of North America in the 18th century* and early-mid 19th century were the answer, then the Red men and women among us would be elevated to the position of gods,far morally superior even to our sacralized Blacks, considering that their fate is so far worse than that of Blacks, as we Europeans repossessed an entire continent from the former, rather than skimming off a small percent of a few African tribes and working them for a brief historical period.

Yet guilt over Amerindian displacement, while it exists, is always less than that for Blacks. There is something else going on here.

___________

* Subsaharan chattel slavery in the lowland areas of the southern British colonies in North America only really got going, in earnest (in 19th-century-recognizable form), during the early 18th century (earliest origins in the 1690s due to a White labor shortage), and 'institutionalized,' as they say, by the mid-18th century, becoming a problem that ended up solved by force of arms a century or so later.

The median arrival date for African slaves is likely 18th century Q3. The average Black American of entirely slave-ancestry has a good deal more years of post-1865 free ancestry (potentially 165 years, as of today, factoring in the small-% of Free Blacks and the slaves freed during the war before 1865) than years of pre-1865 slave ancestry (potentially <100 years, depending on when the median arrival exactly was; it cannot realistically be over 120 years).

Replies: @nebulafox, @SFG

Rihanna's father is/was pretty light skinned, but Barbados is definitely one of the darker-skinned islands of the Caribbean and the population seems much less mixed than, say, Jamaica.

The economy of Barbados in the eighteenth century depended largely on sugar plantations and large numbers of Africans were imported from Nigeria, Ghana, and the Congo. There were no Arawak or other native Americans on the island at the time of the British occupation.

Jane Austen's aunt and other members of her family had interests in sugar plantations in Barbados and so, coincidentally, did the Bertram family at the center of her novel Mansfield Park

In Barbados it is common for there to be jealousy towards lighter-skinned people, and teenage girls everywhere can be bitchy. I doubt whether it bothered Rihanna too much.

http://www.tmymedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Rihanna.jpg

Barbados has produced numerous great cricketers like Sir Wes Hall. Most of them have been on the blacker side of dark.

https://alchetron.com/cdn/wes-hall-9c4a6f71-1e84-42f3-851b-b0d511ce512-resize-750.jpeg

Replies: @LondonBob

Replies: @Anonymous, @britishbrainsize

Guilt.

Even conservatives have to admit slavery was one of America's great moral failings. And Christianity, which is the moral foundation for many conservatives, does make one prone to guilt. (I am not saying Christianity has done nothing good over its 2000 years or in the history of the USA--it's the reason we have any morality at all--but it does predispose to guilt.)

Now I don't think that means every white, including the majority with no connection to Southern slaveholders, have to bow and scrape forever, and I'm certainly no more likely to vote for a politician who doesn't have my interests in mind as a result...but you asked how/why.

Replies: @newrouter, @nebulafox, @Desiderius, @Hail

Replies: @Kylie, @animalogic, @Prof. Woland

Replies: @guest, @Prof. Woland

Have they? Maybe on a family basis, but collectively they're taught it was one of our many Original Sins.

Replies: @Pericles, @Hail

In reality - and in actual practice - there is *very very* little difference, both morally and we facto legally between the institution of black chattel slavery as practised in pre bellum USA and the advocacy of massive, uncontrolled third world pauper immigration - which is, of course, *the* prevailing economic and political dogma - rabidly and vociferously defended by the big bastards at The Economist - to the western world.

Nonsense!, I hear you cry!, but the 'slaves' are volunteers out to better their lives!'.

Perhaps. But the central crux of the matter is the same. The whole idea is to exploit them. And to exploit them viciously. The can be no tougher, more merciless taskmaster than the force of infinite competition driving the price of mere subsistence down to the barest fraction of a penny on a dollar. The advantage of The Economist advocated system is that the slaves, effectively, import themselves, sell themselves, and drive themselves - all at trivial cost to bottom line 'compensation' is reduced to the irreducible minimum which barely figures in the balance sheet.
Asses are wiped, grapes are picked, floors are mopped for nothing, basically. For the owner class, what is there not to like?

Replies: @Hail

Agreed. Anybody who seriously argues that slavery was morally acceptable or somehow beneficial for our nation is not going to be taken seriously by the public, even the right-wing segments of it, and rightfully so. It's a dark chapter in our history and needs to be treated as such.

But the thing that you can't tolerate under any circumstances, however, is never closing the issue once and for all, leaving yourself open to potential emotional blackmail down the road. Germany was stupid enough to let this happen to them when the '68ers threw their tantrum. We got luckier, but it is clear what is wanted. Every crime is finite, no matter how huge: you've got to move on eventually. This is by no means limited to the reparations issues: note that many left-wing intellectuals-predominantly, though not always white-are always very careful never to give specific numbers on how many immigrants should come in a year, for example. It's never concrete. It's never agreed to.

Thus, it'd prove prudent to have whatever can resolve this down on record to have something to point to should any gnat come over and try to extort you in the future. If that means cutting a deal directly with poorer black people-and this is to be explicitly limited to *descendants of slaves*-then so be it. Chances are they care about different things than upper-middle class lefties do, such as ending the War on Drugs, for example. And it certainly would lead to some interesting scenarios with richer blacks, who are more likely to be descended from slaveowners, than your average white person, many of whom didn't even have ancestors here in 1860.

To hell with what the "Muh Free Market" types in the GOP think. Since when have they ever been right, politically or otherwise? Stop treating blacks like they are idiots and stop rambling on about Lincoln, they have damn good reasons for not voting Republican. You don't need their affection: you need coinciding interests, and long-term, I strongly doubt the other racial minorities in this nation are going to be jazzed about playing second fiddle to a minority they outnumber and outpower economically in the Democratic Party. The Coalition of the Fringes can and must be messed with: and there's no better primary target to mess with than the gentry/professional class and oligarchs who really control what once was the party of FDR. What's going to happen if Democratic candidates respond to a quote from Cesar Chavez on immigration and economics with arguments from the Cato Institute come election year?

(What people miss in the rush to condemn the obvious immorality of the system was that it was also extremely retrograde by the mid-1800s. The agrarian plantation model would have needed increasing amounts of state resources to artificially prop it up in the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and would have retarded any nation that kept it as a mainstream feature. This is why I tend to take a dim view of CSA fanboys, not because I don't think the South could have won had a few things gone differently, but more because I think the CSA would have been a backwater hellhole in the long run, far from being a romantic rural paradise, and we'd all have been worse off.

There were a few eventual Confederate leaders who did recognize this in the prewar period on these pragmatic grounds, as opposed to moral ones-Lee was one of them-and thus would have preferred long-term dismantlement of slavery to its perpetuation. But they were a minority in the hothouse pre-Civil War atmosphere. And they one that was essentially asking for the South to carte blanche solve it as they saw fit while the rest of the nation spent resources to keep it up as they moved along. I don't see how political accommodation would have been possible.)

Replies: @newrouter, @Anonymous, @Pericles, @vinteuil, @guest, @Reg Cæsar

Pragmatically speaking, slavery was a big mistake and now you seem to be stuck with its products. But it's also significant that basically everyone else has been permitted to forget about their slaver past.

Replies: @guest, @vinteuil, @S. Anonyia, @nebulafox

AD, I think it's a little much to ask American blacks tothank American slave-owners & their descendants for buying them from their African captors - I mean, it's not like the slave-owners were doing it out of charity! Presumably, they expected value for money.

On the other hand, I wish there was a little more recognition on the part of American blacks (1) that their captors were fellow Africans, & (2) that those who ended up in the USA had, comparatively speaking, won the lottery.

Replies: @Pericles, @JackOH

UMich and Harvard prof: #MeToo wouldn’t have happened if Hillary won

 

Replies: @anonymous

Sikhs in general are a class act. Hard not to respect a people whose elderly men will put up their dukes and attempt to fight when mugged.

Replies: @Cortes, @PiltdownMan

I remember Joe as one of the many hippie-era movies where reactionary characters go on murder rampages against longhairs. Why didn't that happen in real life?

http://www.tasteofcinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Joe-1970.jpg

Replies: @SFG

Pragmatically speaking, slavery was a big mistake and now you seem to be stuck with its products. But it's also significant that basically everyone else has been permitted to forget about their slaver past.

Replies: @guest, @vinteuil, @S. Anonyia, @nebulafox

AD, I think it's a little much to ask American blacks tothank American slave-owners & their descendants for buying them from their African captors - I mean, it's not like the slave-owners were doing it out of charity! Presumably, they expected value for money.

On the other hand, I wish there was a little more recognition on the part of American blacks (1) that their captors were fellow Africans, & (2) that those who ended up in the USA had, comparatively speaking, won the lottery.

Replies: @Pericles, @JackOH

Have they? Maybe on a family basis, but collectively they're taught it was one of our many Original Sins.

Replies: @Pericles, @Hail

But Al Jaffee isn't. Who'd've thought he'd survive the magazine?

Can you even do a fold-out (or fold-in, whatever) online?

My kid just folded a 48-year-old Jaffee that I'd bought new on the stand, and still have.



https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/Xc8AAOSwK6RZN1j~/s-l300.jpg

Replies: @Pericles, @guest, @the one they call Desanex

guilt/shame : society :: pain : body

They both serve as signals within a healthy society/body. This is common to all human civilizations. Christianity rightly practiced functions as a societal pain reliever, releasing excess guilt/shame that has already served its purpose.

You can see in SJWs what happens when that release is denied.

Replies: @SFG

The Columbian discovery turned out to be a massive scheme for replacing the Native American population of large parts of the Americas (virtually all of the islands) with Africans.
 

Blacks have been the benificiary of the most undeserved population expansion in world history.

Usually you get earn a big population expansion by beating the some other guys in warfare--taking their land and their women and spreading your genes. But sub-saharan Africans got an incredible demographic expansion by ... having a slave society, being primitive enough to be easily enslaved and piggy backing on the colonization done by Europeans.

Huge own goal by Euros. Huge undeserved win for blacks.

And has a single black ever thanked us? Said, "man we owe you guys ... big time!"

Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard, @vinteuil, @Diversity Heretic, @95Theses

Pragmatically speaking, slavery was a big mistake and now you seem to be stuck with its products. But it's also significant that basically everyone else has been permitted to forget about their slaver past.

Replies: @guest, @vinteuil, @S. Anonyia, @nebulafox

Agreed. Anybody who seriously argues that slavery was morally acceptable or somehow beneficial for our nation is not going to be taken seriously by the public, even the right-wing segments of it, and rightfully so. It's a dark chapter in our history and needs to be treated as such.

But the thing that you can't tolerate under any circumstances, however, is never closing the issue once and for all, leaving yourself open to potential emotional blackmail down the road. Germany was stupid enough to let this happen to them when the '68ers threw their tantrum. We got luckier, but it is clear what is wanted. Every crime is finite, no matter how huge: you've got to move on eventually. This is by no means limited to the reparations issues: note that many left-wing intellectuals-predominantly, though not always white-are always very careful never to give specific numbers on how many immigrants should come in a year, for example. It's never concrete. It's never agreed to.

Thus, it'd prove prudent to have whatever can resolve this down on record to have something to point to should any gnat come over and try to extort you in the future. If that means cutting a deal directly with poorer black people-and this is to be explicitly limited to *descendants of slaves*-then so be it. Chances are they care about different things than upper-middle class lefties do, such as ending the War on Drugs, for example. And it certainly would lead to some interesting scenarios with richer blacks, who are more likely to be descended from slaveowners, than your average white person, many of whom didn't even have ancestors here in 1860.

To hell with what the "Muh Free Market" types in the GOP think. Since when have they ever been right, politically or otherwise? Stop treating blacks like they are idiots and stop rambling on about Lincoln, they have damn good reasons for not voting Republican. You don't need their affection: you need coinciding interests, and long-term, I strongly doubt the other racial minorities in this nation are going to be jazzed about playing second fiddle to a minority they outnumber and outpower economically in the Democratic Party. The Coalition of the Fringes can and must be messed with: and there's no better primary target to mess with than the gentry/professional class and oligarchs who really control what once was the party of FDR. What's going to happen if Democratic candidates respond to a quote from Cesar Chavez on immigration and economics with arguments from the Cato Institute come election year?

(What people miss in the rush to condemn the obvious immorality of the system was that it was also extremely retrograde by the mid-1800s. The agrarian plantation model would have needed increasing amounts of state resources to artificially prop it up in the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and would have retarded any nation that kept it as a mainstream feature. This is why I tend to take a dim view of CSA fanboys, not because I don't think the South could have won had a few things gone differently, but more because I think the CSA would have been a backwater hellhole in the long run, far from being a romantic rural paradise, and we'd all have been worse off.

There were a few eventual Confederate leaders who did recognize this in the prewar period on these pragmatic grounds, as opposed to moral ones-Lee was one of them-and thus would have preferred long-term dismantlement of slavery to its perpetuation. But they were a minority in the hothouse pre-Civil War atmosphere. And they one that was essentially asking for the South to carte blanche solve it as they saw fit while the rest of the nation spent resources to keep it up as they moved along. I don't see how political accommodation would have been possible.)

Replies: @newrouter, @Anonymous, @Pericles, @vinteuil, @guest, @Reg Cæsar

But Al Jaffee isn't. Who'd've thought he'd survive the magazine?

Can you even do a fold-out (or fold-in, whatever) online?

My kid just folded a 48-year-old Jaffee that I'd bought new on the stand, and still have.



https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/Xc8AAOSwK6RZN1j~/s-l300.jpg

Replies: @Pericles, @guest, @the one they call Desanex

Agreed. Anybody who seriously argues that slavery was morally acceptable or somehow beneficial for our nation is not going to be taken seriously by the public, even the right-wing segments of it, and rightfully so. It's a dark chapter in our history and needs to be treated as such.

But the thing that you can't tolerate under any circumstances, however, is never closing the issue once and for all, leaving yourself open to potential emotional blackmail down the road. Germany was stupid enough to let this happen to them when the '68ers threw their tantrum. We got luckier, but it is clear what is wanted. Every crime is finite, no matter how huge: you've got to move on eventually. This is by no means limited to the reparations issues: note that many left-wing intellectuals-predominantly, though not always white-are always very careful never to give specific numbers on how many immigrants should come in a year, for example. It's never concrete. It's never agreed to.

Thus, it'd prove prudent to have whatever can resolve this down on record to have something to point to should any gnat come over and try to extort you in the future. If that means cutting a deal directly with poorer black people-and this is to be explicitly limited to *descendants of slaves*-then so be it. Chances are they care about different things than upper-middle class lefties do, such as ending the War on Drugs, for example. And it certainly would lead to some interesting scenarios with richer blacks, who are more likely to be descended from slaveowners, than your average white person, many of whom didn't even have ancestors here in 1860.

To hell with what the "Muh Free Market" types in the GOP think. Since when have they ever been right, politically or otherwise? Stop treating blacks like they are idiots and stop rambling on about Lincoln, they have damn good reasons for not voting Republican. You don't need their affection: you need coinciding interests, and long-term, I strongly doubt the other racial minorities in this nation are going to be jazzed about playing second fiddle to a minority they outnumber and outpower economically in the Democratic Party. The Coalition of the Fringes can and must be messed with: and there's no better primary target to mess with than the gentry/professional class and oligarchs who really control what once was the party of FDR. What's going to happen if Democratic candidates respond to a quote from Cesar Chavez on immigration and economics with arguments from the Cato Institute come election year?

(What people miss in the rush to condemn the obvious immorality of the system was that it was also extremely retrograde by the mid-1800s. The agrarian plantation model would have needed increasing amounts of state resources to artificially prop it up in the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and would have retarded any nation that kept it as a mainstream feature. This is why I tend to take a dim view of CSA fanboys, not because I don't think the South could have won had a few things gone differently, but more because I think the CSA would have been a backwater hellhole in the long run, far from being a romantic rural paradise, and we'd all have been worse off.

There were a few eventual Confederate leaders who did recognize this in the prewar period on these pragmatic grounds, as opposed to moral ones-Lee was one of them-and thus would have preferred long-term dismantlement of slavery to its perpetuation. But they were a minority in the hothouse pre-Civil War atmosphere. And they one that was essentially asking for the South to carte blanche solve it as they saw fit while the rest of the nation spent resources to keep it up as they moved along. I don't see how political accommodation would have been possible.)

Replies: @newrouter, @Anonymous, @Pericles, @vinteuil, @guest, @Reg Cæsar

Replies: @Kylie, @animalogic, @Prof. Woland

Replies: @Simon Tugmutton

Replies: @Cortes

But Al Jaffee isn't. Who'd've thought he'd survive the magazine?

Can you even do a fold-out (or fold-in, whatever) online?

My kid just folded a 48-year-old Jaffee that I'd bought new on the stand, and still have.



https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/Xc8AAOSwK6RZN1j~/s-l300.jpg

Replies: @Pericles, @guest, @the one they call Desanex

Agreed. Anybody who seriously argues that slavery was morally acceptable or somehow beneficial for our nation is not going to be taken seriously by the public, even the right-wing segments of it, and rightfully so. It's a dark chapter in our history and needs to be treated as such.

But the thing that you can't tolerate under any circumstances, however, is never closing the issue once and for all, leaving yourself open to potential emotional blackmail down the road. Germany was stupid enough to let this happen to them when the '68ers threw their tantrum. We got luckier, but it is clear what is wanted. Every crime is finite, no matter how huge: you've got to move on eventually. This is by no means limited to the reparations issues: note that many left-wing intellectuals-predominantly, though not always white-are always very careful never to give specific numbers on how many immigrants should come in a year, for example. It's never concrete. It's never agreed to.

Thus, it'd prove prudent to have whatever can resolve this down on record to have something to point to should any gnat come over and try to extort you in the future. If that means cutting a deal directly with poorer black people-and this is to be explicitly limited to *descendants of slaves*-then so be it. Chances are they care about different things than upper-middle class lefties do, such as ending the War on Drugs, for example. And it certainly would lead to some interesting scenarios with richer blacks, who are more likely to be descended from slaveowners, than your average white person, many of whom didn't even have ancestors here in 1860.

To hell with what the "Muh Free Market" types in the GOP think. Since when have they ever been right, politically or otherwise? Stop treating blacks like they are idiots and stop rambling on about Lincoln, they have damn good reasons for not voting Republican. You don't need their affection: you need coinciding interests, and long-term, I strongly doubt the other racial minorities in this nation are going to be jazzed about playing second fiddle to a minority they outnumber and outpower economically in the Democratic Party. The Coalition of the Fringes can and must be messed with: and there's no better primary target to mess with than the gentry/professional class and oligarchs who really control what once was the party of FDR. What's going to happen if Democratic candidates respond to a quote from Cesar Chavez on immigration and economics with arguments from the Cato Institute come election year?

(What people miss in the rush to condemn the obvious immorality of the system was that it was also extremely retrograde by the mid-1800s. The agrarian plantation model would have needed increasing amounts of state resources to artificially prop it up in the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and would have retarded any nation that kept it as a mainstream feature. This is why I tend to take a dim view of CSA fanboys, not because I don't think the South could have won had a few things gone differently, but more because I think the CSA would have been a backwater hellhole in the long run, far from being a romantic rural paradise, and we'd all have been worse off.

There were a few eventual Confederate leaders who did recognize this in the prewar period on these pragmatic grounds, as opposed to moral ones-Lee was one of them-and thus would have preferred long-term dismantlement of slavery to its perpetuation. But they were a minority in the hothouse pre-Civil War atmosphere. And they one that was essentially asking for the South to carte blanche solve it as they saw fit while the rest of the nation spent resources to keep it up as they moved along. I don't see how political accommodation would have been possible.)

Replies: @newrouter, @Anonymous, @Pericles, @vinteuil, @guest, @Reg Cæsar

UMich and Harvard prof: #MeToo wouldn't have happened if Hillary won

MacKinnon compared accusations of sexual abuse made against President Bill Clinton with those made against President Donald Trump, calling claims made against Clinton “a morality crusade” and suggesting that many people were only concerned with the “right use of it [the allegations] for political gain.”

But MacKinnon asserted that the election of Trump fundamentally changed the way that reports of sexual assault were viewed. In her speech, she also contrasted Clinton with Trump by referring to the former president as someone Americans “actually elected.”
 

Replies: @Pericles

Replies: @An Aussie, @Desiderius, @Reg Cæsar

I have long thought Kamala's hair wasn't black enough for her to win.

Obama played the Am I Black Enough for Ya? game much better, but women an their hair is another issue altogether.

Replies: @Pericles

Sikhs in general are a class act. Hard not to respect a people whose elderly men will put up their dukes and attempt to fight when mugged.

Replies: @Cortes, @PiltdownMan

Agreed. Anybody who seriously argues that slavery was morally acceptable or somehow beneficial for our nation is not going to be taken seriously by the public, even the right-wing segments of it, and rightfully so. It's a dark chapter in our history and needs to be treated as such.

But the thing that you can't tolerate under any circumstances, however, is never closing the issue once and for all, leaving yourself open to potential emotional blackmail down the road. Germany was stupid enough to let this happen to them when the '68ers threw their tantrum. We got luckier, but it is clear what is wanted. Every crime is finite, no matter how huge: you've got to move on eventually. This is by no means limited to the reparations issues: note that many left-wing intellectuals-predominantly, though not always white-are always very careful never to give specific numbers on how many immigrants should come in a year, for example. It's never concrete. It's never agreed to.

Thus, it'd prove prudent to have whatever can resolve this down on record to have something to point to should any gnat come over and try to extort you in the future. If that means cutting a deal directly with poorer black people-and this is to be explicitly limited to *descendants of slaves*-then so be it. Chances are they care about different things than upper-middle class lefties do, such as ending the War on Drugs, for example. And it certainly would lead to some interesting scenarios with richer blacks, who are more likely to be descended from slaveowners, than your average white person, many of whom didn't even have ancestors here in 1860.

To hell with what the "Muh Free Market" types in the GOP think. Since when have they ever been right, politically or otherwise? Stop treating blacks like they are idiots and stop rambling on about Lincoln, they have damn good reasons for not voting Republican. You don't need their affection: you need coinciding interests, and long-term, I strongly doubt the other racial minorities in this nation are going to be jazzed about playing second fiddle to a minority they outnumber and outpower economically in the Democratic Party. The Coalition of the Fringes can and must be messed with: and there's no better primary target to mess with than the gentry/professional class and oligarchs who really control what once was the party of FDR. What's going to happen if Democratic candidates respond to a quote from Cesar Chavez on immigration and economics with arguments from the Cato Institute come election year?

(What people miss in the rush to condemn the obvious immorality of the system was that it was also extremely retrograde by the mid-1800s. The agrarian plantation model would have needed increasing amounts of state resources to artificially prop it up in the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and would have retarded any nation that kept it as a mainstream feature. This is why I tend to take a dim view of CSA fanboys, not because I don't think the South could have won had a few things gone differently, but more because I think the CSA would have been a backwater hellhole in the long run, far from being a romantic rural paradise, and we'd all have been worse off.

There were a few eventual Confederate leaders who did recognize this in the prewar period on these pragmatic grounds, as opposed to moral ones-Lee was one of them-and thus would have preferred long-term dismantlement of slavery to its perpetuation. But they were a minority in the hothouse pre-Civil War atmosphere. And they one that was essentially asking for the South to carte blanche solve it as they saw fit while the rest of the nation spent resources to keep it up as they moved along. I don't see how political accommodation would have been possible.)

Replies: @newrouter, @Anonymous, @Pericles, @vinteuil, @guest, @Reg Cæsar

Guilt.

Even conservatives have to admit slavery was one of America's great moral failings. And Christianity, which is the moral foundation for many conservatives, does make one prone to guilt. (I am not saying Christianity has done nothing good over its 2000 years or in the history of the USA--it's the reason we have any morality at all--but it does predispose to guilt.)

Now I don't think that means every white, including the majority with no connection to Southern slaveholders, have to bow and scrape forever, and I'm certainly no more likely to vote for a politician who doesn't have my interests in mind as a result...but you asked how/why.

Replies: @newrouter, @nebulafox, @Desiderius, @Hail

BTW, I know it’s pronounced “sick”, but puns on that order would be microaggressive, and these people carry concealed.
 

Replies: @nebulafox, @Reg Cæsar

Replies: @Reg Cæsar

BTW, I know it’s pronounced “sick”, but puns on that order would be microaggressive, and these people carry concealed.
 

Replies: @nebulafox, @Reg Cæsar

BTW, I know it's pronounced "sick", but puns on that order would be microaggressive, and these people carry concealed.

As a matter of faith.

UK amends law to allow Sikhs to continue wearing kirpans

https://www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/sites/sbs.com.au.yourlanguage/files/styles/full/public/kirpan_2.jpg?itok=a13uP8v9&mtime=1543883271

Replies: @Logan, @Anon7, @Redneck farmer, @PiltdownMan

Aside from some governmental gigs, being a veteran does nothing for one; employer's will drool over a person of many colours, a female, or a pervert; then kick and punch each other about who gets to hire her.

Veterans are just checking a box for governmental reporting; they provide no virtue-signalling mojo – indeed, they can harm the employer's standing in GloboHomo if they suggest any hint of patriotism.

No one is being hired or promoted for being a veteran outside places like Raytheon and Boeing—and even in those places its not because they are veterans as such, but, rather, its because they are people who know people only veterans tend to know....

Replies: @Anonymous, @216

Pretty funny. Sikhs also now have permission to carry them on planes in Canada!

Well, if a Sikh can carry a kirpan with a six inch blade, I don’t see why a little EDC jackknife would be a problem. Except, well, I’d go to jail if I insisted on carrying a knife on a plane.

Who says having an EDC or a Leatherman isn’t a religion? It is according to me. It’s the “Dad” religion.

This is only the very start to the new ritual position of whites in their own countries, called “bending over backwards”. I can’t wait for child brides 14 years of age showing off what they got from their husbands in 10th grade (including sex starting at 12) with our kids. Or streets closed for 15 minutes five times each day for prayers. Or six a.m. amplified Arabic calls to prayer. Halal meat required everywhere. Blonde girls should probably dress modestly and cover their hair, or dye it, to be less of a problem for high-strung Arab males.

BTW, all these incidents have already happened in Europe.

Replies: @El Dato, @Harry Baldwin

Man, this Adam Corolla is something! Awesome! I imagine Governor Newsome will never let Corolla interview him again. Thanks, Harry.

Replies: @Harry Baldwin

Agreed. Anybody who seriously argues that slavery was morally acceptable or somehow beneficial for our nation is not going to be taken seriously by the public, even the right-wing segments of it, and rightfully so. It's a dark chapter in our history and needs to be treated as such.

But the thing that you can't tolerate under any circumstances, however, is never closing the issue once and for all, leaving yourself open to potential emotional blackmail down the road. Germany was stupid enough to let this happen to them when the '68ers threw their tantrum. We got luckier, but it is clear what is wanted. Every crime is finite, no matter how huge: you've got to move on eventually. This is by no means limited to the reparations issues: note that many left-wing intellectuals-predominantly, though not always white-are always very careful never to give specific numbers on how many immigrants should come in a year, for example. It's never concrete. It's never agreed to.

Thus, it'd prove prudent to have whatever can resolve this down on record to have something to point to should any gnat come over and try to extort you in the future. If that means cutting a deal directly with poorer black people-and this is to be explicitly limited to *descendants of slaves*-then so be it. Chances are they care about different things than upper-middle class lefties do, such as ending the War on Drugs, for example. And it certainly would lead to some interesting scenarios with richer blacks, who are more likely to be descended from slaveowners, than your average white person, many of whom didn't even have ancestors here in 1860.

To hell with what the "Muh Free Market" types in the GOP think. Since when have they ever been right, politically or otherwise? Stop treating blacks like they are idiots and stop rambling on about Lincoln, they have damn good reasons for not voting Republican. You don't need their affection: you need coinciding interests, and long-term, I strongly doubt the other racial minorities in this nation are going to be jazzed about playing second fiddle to a minority they outnumber and outpower economically in the Democratic Party. The Coalition of the Fringes can and must be messed with: and there's no better primary target to mess with than the gentry/professional class and oligarchs who really control what once was the party of FDR. What's going to happen if Democratic candidates respond to a quote from Cesar Chavez on immigration and economics with arguments from the Cato Institute come election year?

(What people miss in the rush to condemn the obvious immorality of the system was that it was also extremely retrograde by the mid-1800s. The agrarian plantation model would have needed increasing amounts of state resources to artificially prop it up in the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and would have retarded any nation that kept it as a mainstream feature. This is why I tend to take a dim view of CSA fanboys, not because I don't think the South could have won had a few things gone differently, but more because I think the CSA would have been a backwater hellhole in the long run, far from being a romantic rural paradise, and we'd all have been worse off.

There were a few eventual Confederate leaders who did recognize this in the prewar period on these pragmatic grounds, as opposed to moral ones-Lee was one of them-and thus would have preferred long-term dismantlement of slavery to its perpetuation. But they were a minority in the hothouse pre-Civil War atmosphere. And they one that was essentially asking for the South to carte blanche solve it as they saw fit while the rest of the nation spent resources to keep it up as they moved along. I don't see how political accommodation would have been possible.)

Replies: @newrouter, @Anonymous, @Pericles, @vinteuil, @guest, @Reg Cæsar

Guilt.

Even conservatives have to admit slavery was one of America's great moral failings. And Christianity, which is the moral foundation for many conservatives, does make one prone to guilt. (I am not saying Christianity has done nothing good over its 2000 years or in the history of the USA--it's the reason we have any morality at all--but it does predispose to guilt.)

Now I don't think that means every white, including the majority with no connection to Southern slaveholders, have to bow and scrape forever, and I'm certainly no more likely to vote for a politician who doesn't have my interests in mind as a result...but you asked how/why.

Replies: @newrouter, @nebulafox, @Desiderius, @Hail

Replies: @Anonymous

Aside from some governmental gigs, being a veteran does nothing for one; employer's will drool over a person of many colours, a female, or a pervert; then kick and punch each other about who gets to hire her.

Veterans are just checking a box for governmental reporting; they provide no virtue-signalling mojo – indeed, they can harm the employer's standing in GloboHomo if they suggest any hint of patriotism.

No one is being hired or promoted for being a veteran outside places like Raytheon and Boeing—and even in those places its not because they are veterans as such, but, rather, its because they are people who know people only veterans tend to know....

Replies: @Anonymous, @216

Guilt.

Even conservatives have to admit slavery was one of America's great moral failings. And Christianity, which is the moral foundation for many conservatives, does make one prone to guilt. (I am not saying Christianity has done nothing good over its 2000 years or in the history of the USA--it's the reason we have any morality at all--but it does predispose to guilt.)

Now I don't think that means every white, including the majority with no connection to Southern slaveholders, have to bow and scrape forever, and I'm certainly no more likely to vote for a politician who doesn't have my interests in mind as a result...but you asked how/why.

Replies: @newrouter, @nebulafox, @Desiderius, @Hail

This includes bans on certain styles, such as Afros, braids, twists, cornrows and dreadlocks — or locs for short.
 

Replies: @Sextus Empiricus, @Lo

Replies: @68W58, @Achmed E. Newman

The Revolution ain’t a-comin’—The Revolution is right on our doorstep.
 

Replies: @JackOH

Bo Derek cornrowed her hair in the movie10 but it didn't look all that good.

Replies: @Kylie, @MEH 0910

More importantly, conservatives tend to place Blacks on cultural-political pedestals.

One strange thing about the USA, as I think the foreign-origin John Derbyshire has perceptively written, is how late-20th-century-present America ascribes moral superiority, or moral legitimacy, to Blacks, in situations both grand and small.

It just seems natural to many U.S. Whites today, who know nothingbut. A second thought hardly given. Objectively, though, it's just profoundly weird, isn't it?

Historians of the future will wonder how/why...

Replies: @SFG

Replies: @An Aussie, @Desiderius, @Reg Cæsar

And has a single black ever thanked us? Said, “man we owe you guys … big time!”
 

Replies: @Hail

And the corn-row: what more “natural” style of hair is there?

 

Replies: @MEH 0910

Replies: @68W58, @Achmed E. Newman

Replies: @SFG

Replies: @El Dato, @Pericles, @Daniel H, @SFG, @nebulafox

Replies: @An Aussie, @Desiderius, @Reg Cæsar

"Stasis" have reconverted pretty much exactly 30 years ago and are retired now.

I hope you don't still look for the Soviet Union either, as does the MSM?

Replies: @J.Ross

The Columbian discovery turned out to be a massive scheme for replacing the Native American population of large parts of the Americas (virtually all of the islands) with Africans.
 

Blacks have been the benificiary of the most undeserved population expansion in world history.

Usually you get earn a big population expansion by beating the some other guys in warfare--taking their land and their women and spreading your genes. But sub-saharan Africans got an incredible demographic expansion by ... having a slave society, being primitive enough to be easily enslaved and piggy backing on the colonization done by Europeans.

Huge own goal by Euros. Huge undeserved win for blacks.

And has a single black ever thanked us? Said, "man we owe you guys ... big time!"

Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard, @vinteuil, @Diversity Heretic, @95Theses

Replies: @guest, @Prof. Woland

But ... how could thatbe?!? Open borders are advocated merely for economic efficiency, aren't they??

Looking at the author, I find the following introduction.

Joel is the first blogger at Open Borders who contacted us of his own initiative for the blogging role, and also the first blogger here who does not comment on EconLog. All other recruits so far have been people we came to know of and touched base with through the comments space on EconLog. Thus, he’s likely to bring a new and somewhat different perspective to the case for open borders than most of the regular and guest bloggers on the site so far.

 

Replies: @SFG

Bo Derek cornrowed her hair in the movie10 but it didn't look all that good.

Replies: @Kylie, @MEH 0910