Reflect on the words of Caucasian economist, Douglass C. North, then ask yourselves

This is a waste of time.
You still have not established who gets paid.
what qualifies them
What about the Irish slaves.
what about the black slaveowners.

 

of course its a waste of time if you are the one who has to foot the bill.
yes ihave.
there were 0 irish slaves
they dont get a claim.
ican do this all day and you can keep refusing but at the end of the day its not me thats looking bad here lol. its a win win for me

 

In the 1980s, after Fat Albert and during the making of The Cosby Show, Cosby researched his genealogy with the help of Johni Cerny, who published a paper on her findings in March, 1987 with the National Genealogical Society. The results? Cosby’s great, great, great grandmother, a slave named Maria (no surname) born in 1797, was owned by one John Cosby, a small-plantation owner in Nelson County, Virginia.

so thats about 9 we have so far, looks like those lucky people are getting $8trillion each, unless we find more so called african americans who can trace their ancestry to slavery in amerikkka, in which case the proportion begins to shrink.

 

As usual, you are arguing about a subject you know nothing about.


The Slaves That Time Forgot

By John Martin

They came as slaves; vast human cargo transported on tall British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.

Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. They were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.

We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? After all, we know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade. But, are we talking about African slavery?

King James II and Charles I led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.

The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African.

The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves.

This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia.

There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.

There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry.

In 1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end it’s participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.

Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories. But, where are our public (and PRIVATE) schools???? Where are the history books? Why is it so seldom discussed?

Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims merit more than a mention from an unknown writer? Or is their story to be one that their English pirates intended: To (unlike the African book) have the Irish story utterly and completely disappear as if it never happened.

None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot.

 

Get serious those are public people.

How many of those can even be proven.

You don't even understand what this whole thing is about, and the logistics to do anything.

 

Payment goes only to the injured Slaves. I maintain they were kept in homes, fed food and given clothing and appear to have embraced religion. A few slaves got awards until government put a stop to it. The harm done to the South is far greater in lost lives along with lost wealth so I will wait for a poster to want to give reparations to the plantation owners and the families of the troops first.

A Marshall plan for the plantations would have gone a long ways to making the South self sufficient. The South was held down by the North for over 90 years and nobody wants to hand them taxpayer funds.

 

The Irish slaves myth concerns the use of the term Irish "slaves" as a conflation of the penal transportation and indentured servitude of Irish people during the 17th and 18th centuries. Some white nationalists, and others who want to minimize the hereditary chattel slavery experience of Africans and their descendants, have used the myth to attack contemporary African American efforts for equality and reparations. The Irish slaves myth has also been invoked by some Irish activists, to highlight the British oppression of the Irish people and to suppress the history of Irish involvement in the transatlantic slave trade.

The myth has become increasingly prominent since the 1990s and has been prominent in online memes and social media debates.[3] This has led a large number of historians to publicly condemn it

The myth has been a common trope on the white supremacist website Stormfront since 2003

The Irish Examiner removed an article that cited John Martin's Globalresearch.ca piece from its website in early 2016 after 82 writers, historians and academics wrote an open letter condemning the myth.

Matthew Reilly, a postdoctoral fellow at Brown University with an academic background in Barbadian slavery, asserts that "The Irish slave myth is not supported by the historical evidence." Historians note that unlike slaves, most indentured servants willingly entered into contracts with another person, only served for a finite period, did not pass their unfree status on to their children, and were still considered human.

Historian Donald Akenson, writing in If the Irish Ran the World: Montserrat, 1630-1730, states that on the island of Montserrat, "White indentured servitude was so very different from black slavery as to be from another galaxy of human experience.

bravo yasureoktoo for announcing your true colours and stormfront sourcing for your arguments, iwould never have guessed you would likely be a subsciber to stormfront doctrine, NOT.

the apple never falls far from the tree.

 

LOLOL

Poor baby.
I was never at stormfront in my life.
But hey, any excuse works for you.

 

from the irishtimes itself https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/donald-clarke-free-us-from-myth-of-us-irish-slavery-1.2739108


The admirable Liam Hogan, a research librarian at the Limerick City Library, has been tireless in his dismantling of this poisonous legend. In the wake of Mrs Obama’s speech, he gathered together some of the choicest quotes on social media. “White House mostly built by white Irish slaves,” one remarked. “Little known fact. Most slaves in America were white Irish,” another yelled. And so on.

In recent decades, we have become more careful how we use the word “slave”. Last year there was a minor kerfuffle when, while promoting the so-so movie Suffragette, Carey Mulligan and Meryl Streep appeared in T-shirts bearing the legend: “I’d rather be a rebel than a slave.” Not everybody was happy when Prince compared an unhappy relationship with Sony to being “a slave”. Let us be clear. Most who peddle the Irish slavery myth are not using the word in similarly analogous fashion. The suggestion is that the Irish were literally enslaved and that they were treated worse than African slaves.

Delusions debunked Over five huge online posts, Hogan has debunked many of the most common delusions. Individual reports of hideous abuse to servants – sometimes not even Irish – are offered as proof of habitual enormities. Migration figures are distorted to lunatic effect. Those sorts of things.

The most common and slippery argument concerns a conflation of indentured servitude with chattel slavery. Hogan quotes Donald Harman Akenson, author of If the Irish Ran the World: Montserrat, 1630-1730, on the subject: “White indentured servitude was so very different from black slavery as to be from another galaxy of human experience.”

So, why do so many Irish people (and more Irish-Americans) want to believe this gibberish? The subject arose in the aftermath of Gerry Adams’s unfortunate use of the n-word earlier this year and, to certain of his followers, anybody disputing the legend proved themselves a famine denier or part of the “indentured servant lobby”. To be fair, there was, in this case, an attempt to identify with the African-American experience.

More commonly we see racists using the myth to belittle the suffering visited on black slaves and to siphon some sympathy towards their own clan. A hasty visit to Twitter generates face-palming results. “you ever hear of my culture the proud irish complain,” Edward asks us (I think) before mentioning the “100,000 Irish slaves”.

“Nobody talks about the Irish slaves because they don’t piss & moan about it,” Amy, a Trump supporter, bellows.

“The diff btwn Irish and Blk slaves? Irish din’t piss and moan about it for 200+ yrs,” Son of Beraigh says.

Can you people not see the irony? You do nothing but complain. It would be funny if it weren’t so depressing.

 

White Suoremacy's shock posting.

 

so, bravo on using literature promulgated on Stormfront. the apple never falls far from the tree.

 

Nope. Obama's mom is a, Caucasoid, and his dad came here as a landed alien. Obama has no DNA/no roots, to the U.S. Slave Trade's victims.

 

None of this obfuscatory gobbledygook which you, posted, will change the fact that we Whitefolks shouldn't have stolen them from their Homeland. Yes, then in 1863 we could've easily compensated them for their Slavery, then sent them on back to Africa.

But, we kept them here. Then refused to compensate them for, literally, making America great with those cotton-picking expertises of theirs. Therefore your neighborhood and my uppity-White neighborhood and @Doofenshmirtz anti-darkskinned neighborhood, is fair game, yes technically they get to come take a dump on our neighborhoods if they feel like it. We kept them here, so we need to accept the ramifications of that decision.

We owe them far, far more than the destruction costs of your neighborhood.

 

LOLOL

Obamas Mother has slavery in her ancestry.
Don't you know anything.

Here, read whichever one you want.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=obama...f77a346e3a549b3a867914078&cc=US&setlang=en-US

 

according to yasurtoo or whatever its name is, obamas mom was a slave. this is the type of argument we are dealing with lmao.

 

the reason certain ppl here oppose reparations is because a certain institute run by a certain ppl will have to stump up $75 trillion and you know how us white folk are obsessed with money. we would sell our birthrights for a fat cheque, thats biblical!

 

I already know you'll refuse to answer this, specifically, because you don't want to post any words which will embarrass your own Life's philosophies ---but I'll ask it anyway...


Which part of these facts make it, reasonable, to decide Black people are owed nothing for producing 'this cotton' for free:


"...By 1860, Great Britain, the world’s most powerful country, had become the birthplace of the industrial revolution, and a significant part of that nation’s industry was cotton textiles. Nearly 4,000,000 of Britain’s total population of 21,000,000 were dependent on cotton textile manufacturing.

Nearly forty percent of Britain’s exports were cotton textiles. Seventy-five percent of the cotton that supplied Britain’s cotton mills came from the American South, and the labor that produced that cotton came from slaves.

Because of British demand, cotton was vital to the American economy. The Nobel Prize-winning economist, Douglass C. North, stated that cotton “was the most important proximate cause of expansion” in the 19th century American economy. Cotton accounted for over half of all American exports during the first half of the 19th century.

The cotton market supported America’s ability to borrow money from abroad. It also fostered an enormous domestic trade in agricultural products from the West and manufactured goods from the East. In short, cotton helped tie the country together..."

 

And Obamas dad was Shia Muslim, you can bet there was slavery somewhere down the line.
It's part of the religion.

 

All Black citizens born before 01Jan1964 (for CRA'64 reasons) get a certain amount, all Blacks in America after 01Jan1964 get a very-slightly, smaller amount. White Privilege hath been a cold mufu pal.

And remember, only 22-28% of Blacks will even opt for receiving the Reparations ---thanks to colossal effectiveness of 155yrs of Stockholm Syndrome and 25yrs of Clarence "Uncle" Thomas Syndrome as well as Obama's turning Dr. Kings Dream into Black America's nightmare.

 

And what percentage black are they.
How do you tell, DNA tests.
Who pays, my family was not here during slavery.

 

the govt pays, ive told you 10 times now. it aint hard to tell.

 

White Jewish Europeans were one of the main financiers of the slave markets. its their religion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...429-bd50-beff03741418/?utm_term=.f75e7e919aef

 

LOLOL
And where do you think the government gets it's money.

 

from White European Jewish sources;

The island of Curac ao, a pivotal Dutch distribution center off the coast of Venezuela, was the site of the largest Jewish settlement in the New World. The Sephardic community there numbered almost 2,000 by the mid-1700s, constituting about half of the white population. Curac ao's Jews "prospered early through shipping and slave-trading," writes David Lowenthal in "West Indian Societies." Isaac S. and Suzanne A. Emmanuel, historians of Curac aoan Jewry, report that "{a}lmost every Jew bought from one to nine slaves for his personal use or for eventual resale." Later, Curac aoan Jews became, as Stephen Fortune writes, "the predominant insurance underwriters for ships plying the Caribbean" -- including slave ships.

 

from you.