The Fake Native American Now Wants Reparations for Slavery

[Adrenaline_6]

And now you are claiming that segregation wasn't forced?
Segregation was literally in the laws at the time. How much more forced do you want it? Kids had to be escorted to school by federal marshalls once it was overturned. How were people NOT forced into segregation.

There was no choice in the matter. Black codes, Jim Crow, Zoning laws that force non whites to live in certain areas.. Again. How did people have a choice?

Then there was affirmative action and such. Wasn't that forced too? That wasn't equal either. So here we are. People need to own their own and either put up or shut up. The victim mentality is proven to get you no where, it has and never will be really "equal". People who accept this and make the best of what they have, put their heads down and work will more than likely make it better for them and their next generation. Handouts perpetuate the victim mentality and the next generation stays the same.

[glocktogo]

So you are trying to claim that none of the issues faced today are a direct result of long term segregation in his country that just ended in the 60s? An entire group of people forced to have worse educations, lower paying jobs, shoved into their own small communities and punished if they tried to better themselves. Then suddenly they were equal. But at that point they were way behind and nothing was ever done to correct that. But you think it had no impact on things. riiight.

And where did I say anything about Segregation today? I said the issues we face related to segregation. I see reading comprehension isn't on your list of skills either.

So you're saying that Affirmative Action and school integration via bussing didn't happen?

Quite simply, billions of dollars are spent every year on diversity programs and regulatory compliance. There are more programs per capita for minorities than for non-minorities. Fifty five years after segregation ended, if you're still "disadvantaged", it's because you want to be. The victimhood industry is big business because it pays well.

https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/hiring/affirmativeact

https://www.aaaed.org/aaaed/About_Af..._Inclusion.asp

https://nationalpolicy.institute/200...-of-diversity/

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...eter-kirsanow/

[Averageman]

When affirmative action first began I had applied for a apprenticeship program for Heavy Equipment. I filled out the application pages, added plenty of references as to my good work and time in the construction field, I even had many former bosses hand write a reference for me. I got there early to turn in my application and stayed late to ask questions, out of maybe 100 applicant three of us stayed for that. Finally the guy in charge, a construction guy, I don't think HR was a "thing" then, took me aside and handed me my paperwork back, all of it. He told me due to affirmative Action, they needed Blacks, Mexicans and Women for these positions and although I seemed like the kind of guy they wanted, I just wasn't the right color or sex for the program.
Fast forward to 2018 and my Son is a Nurse, most of the people he works with are Women and most of those Women are either Black or Brown. He said he felt like he was being ostracized and not being treated fairly at work. In a brilliant move, he invited his Grandmother to lunch at the Hospital and that all changed, you see his Grandma is Black and now suddenly he "Fit In."
See how that works?
No matter how you try and make things "fair" somebody is always going to get screwed. It just depends on who is in charge as to who's gonna get screwed.

[ramairthree]

Not really sure about how that referance applies....but look at their company now.... I mean in the 1990s.... oops I mean the 1980s ....... late 1970s? ......... kicking ass and taking names in 1971........

The AMX was a nice car. I helped my dad restore one in the 1980...... beside that Wayne and Garth are the only ones that liked the Pacer.....

It was an example of virtue signaling and trends.
They were virtue signaling about the muscle car war.
They they joined in.
A complete 180 to their virtue signaling.
The dove full in with some of the wildest color schemes.
They backed it with some real effort and had some brief success before the end of win on Sunday sell on Monday.

Then they decided to show everyone how cool, trendy and progressive they were with weird stuff. Then they went out of business.

It just sums up the whole virtue signaling progressive vibe.

I am EBD on a philosophy Ph.D. With my thesis “American Motors- or - A Microverse of Virtual Signaling and Progressiveism as the Stand In Saga of the Death of A Superpower.”




Not really.

[docsherm]

It was an example of virtue signaling and trends.
They were virtue signaling about the muscle car war.
They they joined in.
A complete 180 to their virtue signaling.
The dove full in with some of the wildest color schemes.
They backed it with some real effort and had some brief success before the end of win on Sunday sell on Monday.

Then they decided to show everyone how cool, trendy and progressive they were with weird stuff. Then they went out of business.

It just sums up the whole virtue signaling progressive vibe.

I am EBD on a philosophy Ph.D. With my thesis “American Motors- or - A Microverse of Virtual Signaling and Progressiveism as the Stand In Saga of the Death of A Superpower.”




Not really.

Well that would have been very impressive, and I am kind of disappointed that there is not such a degree .......

[Doc Safari]

Uh..... 3

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...=1550944582899

What do you do about those from India? How about Semitic peoples? I'm glad the article does at least seem to put Australian aborigines in a different category.

Even though Neanderthals are extinct, should they be considered another "race"? How about Native Americans? Genetically they appear to be most related to Mongoloid, but has their separation from that gene pool over centuries and the consolidation of DNA in North America for all practical purposes created "another" race?

As I said, it was the subject of some debate in my anthropology class.

[docsherm]

What do you do about those from India? How about Semitic peoples? I'm glad the article does at least seem to put Australian aborigines in a different category.

Even though Neanderthals are extinct, should they be considered another "race"? How about Native Americans? Genetically they appear to be most related to Mongoloid, but has their separation from that gene pool over centuries and the consolidation of DNA in North America for all practical purposes created "another" race?

As I said, it was the subject of some debate in my anthropology class.

Indians (Dot, not feather) are considered Caucasian. The Confusion is political and not scientific. It is not PC to say that Mexicans as White because then it is not racist to build a wall. It is all about the genetic make up and not what people look like. Even mixed people will still retain the genetic makeup that will be dominate just like all other traits.

[SteyrAUG]

So some real facts about slavery.

A former indentured servant himself, Anthony Johnson was a “free negro” who owned a 250-acre farm in Virginia during the 1650s, with five indentured servants under contract to him. One of them, a black man named John Casor, claimed that his term of service had expired years earlier and Johnson was holding him illegally. In 1654, a civil court found that Johnson in fact owned Casor’s services for life, an outcome historian R Halliburton Jr. calls “one of the first known legal sanctions of slavery — other than as a punishment for crime.”

William Ellison was a very wealthy black plantation owner and cotton gin manufacturer who lived in South Carolina. According to the 1860 census (in which his surname was listed as “Ellerson”), he owned 63 black slaves, making him the largest of the 171 black slaveholders in South Carolina.

American Indians owned thousands of black slaves. Historian Tiya Miles provided this snapshot of the Native American ownership of black slaves at the turn of the 19th century for Slate magazine in January 2016:

Miles places the number of enslaved people held by Cherokees at around 600 at the start of the 19th century and around 1,500 at the time of westward removal in 1838-9. (Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, she said, held around 3,500 slaves, across the three nations, as the 19th century began.) “Slavery inched its way slowly into Cherokee life,” Miles told me. “When a white man moved into a Native location, usually to work as a trader or as an Indian agent, he would own [African] slaves.” If such a person also had a child with a Native woman, as was not uncommon, the half-European, half-Native child would inherit the enslaved people (and their children) under white law, as well as the right to use tribal lands under tribal law. This combination put such people in a position to expand their wealth, eventually operating large farms and plantations.

There were approximately 319,599 free blacks in the United States in 1830. Approximately 13.7 per cent of the total black population was free. A significant number of these free blacks were the owners of slaves. The census of 1830 lists 3,775 free Negroes who owned a total of 12,760 slaves.

Don't even get me started on the number of wealthy, free "slave traders" who were black and attended universities in the northeast in early American history.

Btw, the above is the correct, true accounting and not the exaggerated version that has been floating around on the internet.

[flenna]

So some real facts about slavery.

A former indentured servant himself, Anthony Johnson was a “free negro” who owned a 250-acre farm in Virginia during the 1650s, with five indentured servants under contract to him. One of them, a black man named John Casor, claimed that his term of service had expired years earlier and Johnson was holding him illegally. In 1654, a civil court found that Johnson in fact owned Casor’s services for life, an outcome historian R Halliburton Jr. calls “one of the first known legal sanctions of slavery — other than as a punishment for crime.”

William Ellison was a very wealthy black plantation owner and cotton gin manufacturer who lived in South Carolina. According to the 1860 census (in which his surname was listed as “Ellerson”), he owned 63 black slaves, making him the largest of the 171 black slaveholders in South Carolina.

American Indians owned thousands of black slaves. Historian Tiya Miles provided this snapshot of the Native American ownership of black slaves at the turn of the 19th century for Slate magazine in January 2016:

Miles places the number of enslaved people held by Cherokees at around 600 at the start of the 19th century and around 1,500 at the time of westward removal in 1838-9. (Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, she said, held around 3,500 slaves, across the three nations, as the 19th century began.) “Slavery inched its way slowly into Cherokee life,” Miles told me. “When a white man moved into a Native location, usually to work as a trader or as an Indian agent, he would own [African] slaves.” If such a person also had a child with a Native woman, as was not uncommon, the half-European, half-Native child would inherit the enslaved people (and their children) under white law, as well as the right to use tribal lands under tribal law. This combination put such people in a position to expand their wealth, eventually operating large farms and plantations.

There were approximately 319,599 free blacks in the United States in 1830. Approximately 13.7 per cent of the total black population was free. A significant number of these free blacks were the owners of slaves. The census of 1830 lists 3,775 free Negroes who owned a total of 12,760 slaves.

Don't even get me started on the number of wealthy, free "slave traders" who were black and attended universities in the northeast in early American history.

Btw, the above is the correct, true accounting and not the exaggerated version that has been floating around on the internet.

Ok. But remember that we are living in post-truth America where facts mean nothing and historical facts mean less than nothing (is that possible?). It is all about what people WANT to believe. And since TRUE history is not even taught in schools anymore you might as well be reading to the masses from a Dr. Seuss book.

[ABNAK]

Indians (Dot, not feather) are considered Caucasian. The Confusion is political and not scientific. It is not PC to say that Mexicans as White because then it is not racist to build a wall. It is all about the genetic make up and not what people look like. Even mixed people will still retain the genetic makeup that will be dominate just like all other traits.

The Mexicans in positions of power (and in just about all Latin nations) are generally of Castilian descent, i.e. European/"white" ancestry. The ones pouring across our borders are Mestizos....Spaniards mixed with Indians (feather not dot). That is why it is so easy for the Left to scream "RACIST!!!" when we demand a wall. It is utter bullshit but there is your reason.