Should black Americans get slavery reparations?

Kyle

Imagine No Democrats
PREMO Member
Democrats enslaved them, fought to keep them enslaved and formed the KKK to terrorize them after emancipation.... I'm good with every democrat being deprived of their wealth to satisfy this proposal.
 

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
How about a First Class ticket back to the African country of your choice. We brought you here we should pay for your trip back.....
I don't foresee many takers.....even Baltimore ghettoes are better than most of those Shitholes.......
 

Monello

Awww, jeez
PREMO Member
The answer to the question is emphatically "YES". Every black person who was legally a slave in the United States, or, their immediate offspring should receive $1M immediately and be tax-exempt for the remainder of their lives.
Let's say for argument sake this is an official policy. A person is indeed a direct descendant of a slave. Call slave 1. 1 has kids A & B. A & B are direct descendants 100%. A marries Z and B marries Y. Z is also a 100% direct descendant of a slave. Y has no slave family history. AZ have a kid named 2. BY have a kid named 3. 2 is 100% slave descendant. 3 is only 50% slave descendant. It would stand to reason that 2 was impacted to a greater degree from slavery when compared to 3. Thus 2 is entitled to a greater percentage of compensation.

Now run this example out 5 - 6 generations. Fat chance that anyone alive today is 100% descendant of slaves. Any descendant would have a percentage. That percentage would have to be figured before awarding any monetary benefit.

What if the parentage is unknown? Would that parent default to 0%? Anytime a non slave person enters into the mix, percentage drops by 50% automatically. So we go from 100 to 50 down to 25 then 12.5. Drilling further down we get 6.25, 3.125 and finally 1.5625%. That assumes that 1 of the parents is 100% slave descendant. If both parents are less than 100%, the percentage drops off even faster.

It would stand that more people are 1% and 3% than are 50% & 100%. Payments in this case, using your example, would be in the $30,000 range more or less.

In the case of caucasians that have interracial kids, the opposite would be true. The white parent would have no claim but their offspring could. If that offspring reproduced with another slave descendant, the grandchild would have a higher percent than both the grandparent and parent.
 

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
Let's say for argument sake this is an official policy. A person is indeed a direct descendant of a slave. Call slave 1. 1 has kids A & B. A & B are direct descendants 100%. A marries Z and B marries Y. Z is also a 100% direct descendant of a slave. Y has no slave family history. AZ have a kid named 2. BY have a kid named 3. 2 is 100% slave descendant. 3 is only 50% slave descendant. It would stand to reason that 2 was impacted to a greater degree from slavery when compared to 3. Thus 2 is entitled to a greater percentage of compensation.

Now run this example out 5 - 6 generations. Fat chance that anyone alive today is 100% descendant of slaves. Any descendant would have a percentage. That percentage would have to be figured before awarding any monetary benefit.

What is the parentage is unknown? Would that parent default to 0%? Anytime a non slave person enters into the mix, percentage drops by 50% automatically. So we go from 100 to 50 down to 25 then 12.5. Drilling further down we get 6.25, 3.125 and finally 1.5625%. That assumes that 1 of the parents is 100% slave descendant. If both parents are less than 100%, the percentage drops off even faster.

It would stand that more people are 1% and 3% than are 50% & 100%. Payments in this case, using your example, would be in the $30,000 range more or less.

In the case of caucasians that have interracial kids, the opposite would be true. The white parent would have no claim but their offspring could. If that offspring reproduced with another slave descendant, the grandchild would have a higher percent than both the grandparent and parent.
You just gave me a headache........:smack:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
Staff member
PREMO Member
"Reparations for slavery" is just a buzzphrase the Dems put out there to lure black people and white racists with jungle fever into the fold. They trot it out periodically, then forget it after the election. It's too convoluted and unworkable, and would solve precisely nothing. Notice that none of them have an actual plan that they can verbalize; they just say "reparations for slavery" and move on to the next topic.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Hmm, so the SIL has a black husband. Kids are 50/50. One of those kids just had a child with a 100% black lady. Say another of thier kids has a child with a white person. Who the hell gets what? But since they and thiers are hard workers who do well, I'll bet not a dime. You can be sure their will be a means test attached.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
There will always be someone who wants something for nothing, and there will always be politicians who will promise them something to get their vote.

In the case of Elizabeth Warren particularly this is her sole purpose for bringing up reparations.
First she lies about her native-American ancestry to get her college job, then she comes up with this big reparations plan to get votes.

IMO her integrity score is Zero, Zilch, below the level of even communicating with her.
I certainly feel embarrassed for her ,she is below contempt.

The good thing is that many blacks are on to their scam, and the numbers are growing, as they sell out blacks for illegal Hispanics
The question is can they buy them back with promise of a payoff that will never happen.
The promise Warren is making is smoke and mirrors and she know it.
 
Last edited:

CPUSA

Well-Known Member
The answer to the question is: No.
I agree
No need for asinine explanations or rationalizations...the answer is simple and it is "No".
I agree
Neither, as stated by the typically idiotic Fox "News" contributor, should the US get any "credit" for ending slavery after only 150 years.
I agree. How can the US claim to have ended slavery when Africa is still selling slaves today? We just stopped buying their product.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Let's say for argument sake this is an official policy. A person is indeed a direct descendant of a slave. Call slave 1. 1 has kids A & B. A & B are direct descendants 100%. A marries Z and B marries Y. Z is also a 100% direct descendant of a slave. Y has no slave family history. AZ have a kid named 2. BY have a kid named 3. 2 is 100% slave descendant. 3 is only 50% slave descendant. It would stand to reason that 2 was impacted to a greater degree from slavery when compared to 3. Thus 2 is entitled to a greater percentage of compensation.

Now run this example out 5 - 6 generations. Fat chance that anyone alive today is 100% descendant of slaves. Any descendant would have a percentage. That percentage would have to be figured before awarding any monetary benefit.

What if the parentage is unknown? Would that parent default to 0%? Anytime a non slave person enters into the mix, percentage drops by 50% automatically. So we go from 100 to 50 down to 25 then 12.5. Drilling further down we get 6.25, 3.125 and finally 1.5625%. That assumes that 1 of the parents is 100% slave descendant. If both parents are less than 100%, the percentage drops off even faster.

It would stand that more people are 1% and 3% than are 50% & 100%. Payments in this case, using your example, would be in the $30,000 range more or less.

In the case of caucasians that have interracial kids, the opposite would be true. The white parent would have no claim but their offspring could. If that offspring reproduced with another slave descendant, the grandchild would have a higher percent than both the grandparent and parent.
That is why I stopped at the immediate offspring of the person born into slavery
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
Let's say for argument sake this is an official policy. A person is indeed a direct descendant of a slave. Call slave 1. 1 has kids A & B. A & B are direct descendants 100%. A marries Z and B marries Y. Z is also a 100% direct descendant of a slave. Y has no slave family history. AZ have a kid named 2. BY have a kid named 3. 2 is 100% slave descendant. 3 is only 50% slave descendant. It would stand to reason that 2 was impacted to a greater degree from slavery when compared to 3. Thus 2 is entitled to a greater percentage of compensation.

Now run this example out 5 - 6 generations. Fat chance that anyone alive today is 100% descendant of slaves. Any descendant would have a percentage. That percentage would have to be figured before awarding any monetary benefit.

What if the parentage is unknown? Would that parent default to 0%? Anytime a non slave person enters into the mix, percentage drops by 50% automatically. So we go from 100 to 50 down to 25 then 12.5. Drilling further down we get 6.25, 3.125 and finally 1.5625%. That assumes that 1 of the parents is 100% slave descendant. If both parents are less than 100%, the percentage drops off even faster.

It would stand that more people are 1% and 3% than are 50% & 100%. Payments in this case, using your example, would be in the $30,000 range more or less.

In the case of caucasians that have interracial kids, the opposite would be true. The white parent would have no claim but their offspring could. If that offspring reproduced with another slave descendant, the grandchild would have a higher percent than both the grandparent and parent.
Pretty soon, we'll be at 1/1024th slave ancestry.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
I pay reparations. Every July 20th I go to the county building to pay a pile of money so other people's kids can go to school.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Here's a thought.

My daughter is from Africa. As - adopted from Africa. Her ancestors were never slaves.
BUT - she is black in America, and the argument is that the United States has an institutional bias against blacks
that derives from a history of slavery. Hence, a culture that is tougher on blacks - wherever they come from.

Does she get slave reparations? She's not a descendant of slaves.
 

Tech

Well-Known Member
Short answer no but this raises questions if this was to go through. Will the person need to prove being a descendant of a slave? If so, who gets it? If Grammy claims it, are any of her descendants entitled? Are we going to pay each one at birth from there on?
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
The whole thing about reparations is bullsh1t and I should get reparations for listening to the whining about it for the last ten years.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

Never happen. There is no amount that would satisfy. And if there were an amount to satisfy, give it a couple more years and they'd come back demanding more. Because, well, whitey interfered with their enjoyment of it in some way, as well as because most businesses are owned by whitey, meaning, they couldn't spend it at black run businesses, (save the corner drug dealer), causing a feeling of depression. And because no one taught them how to manage, invest, or save the money. So it's all gone now. More more more. Best bet is to just say, nope, it ain't gonna happen, and for them to go f--k themselves.
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
I am all for reparations for anyone who can prove they were a slave to an American owner. Nobody else is eligible. Of course any reparations paid must first be first used to pay back any Head Start, All-day Kindergarten, Wellfare, Food Stamps, and other federal programs paid to them in the past.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Sure, why not? As long as any reparations are accompanied with repatriation to their native land. Make them whole and all that. Fair is fair.
 
Top