"Reparations for Slavery?"

Yup, slavery was and is wrong. It was wrong for the serfs in eastern Europe under the yolk of the Russian aristocracy. It was wrong for the slaves in China. It was wrong for the slaves in Egypt. It was wrong for everyone who was chained and forced to work against their will (well, except people in prison). Even today, slavery still exists, most notably in Africa and Asia. Most of the street sex trade in America is fueled by the slave trade.

Genocide has been perpetrated all over the world, most notably starting with the eradication of the Neanderthals by homo sapien sapiens. Not discounting any one groups near annihlation.

But reparations? These people just want some free money.
 
What Yvsa said. How many times have you heard an elder mention they were waiting on their land payment checks? I've occasionally heard that with some of the old ones here.

I'm glad this thread is staying civil. It had flame potential.

Ferguson- you may have heard different stories near the Res up there, but in N.Georgia I have heard a different story from the old ones. The settlers and the Cherokee in North Georgia generally got along OK. There really wasn't that many problems on a large scale. Most of the problems usually came down to just being humans.

In 1830's, the Vice President of the US found out that there was gold in Dahlonega, GA and thus began the sad story that is the Trail of Tears. His family owned a mine there for a long time. It was politics at it's worst. With the discovery of gold, came a gold rush of people, and problems ensued. The "removal"-- it was all about the gold.
 
Reparations, I don't think so. How about instead undoing all the damage caused by quota based hiring practices. How about everyone gets the same chance and no one is special. The best qualified gets into the school or into the job regardless. After all, I could not be playing in tonights Superbowl with all of those millionaire role models :barf: because I would not be qualified. Why should anything else be different.
 
I don't think gay "marriage" is any concern of mine. Why should I care? For hundreds of years in English society (what American law is modeled after), marriage was a civil, not a religious concern.

Why should I attempt to deny any consenting adult the right to allow another adult to share his civil affairs? (generic English "his") Why, exactly, should I be concerned that someone wants to delegate someone not a blood relative to speak on his behalf in medical and legal decisions? As long as it's a deliberate choice, why, exactly, should I be concerned? WHY?!

John, closet hippy with many guns
 
Genocide has been perpetrated all over the world, most notably starting with the eradication of the Neanderthals by homo sapien sapiens.

Where did this come from?
To my knowledge, there is no evidence that the Neanderthals were killed, but just "out-performed" in the survival game by a more successful version of Homo Sapiens.
 
I don't have the exact articles, but I have read this HYPOTHESIZED in several anthropological journals, and this hypotheses was postured by my teacher in my anthro class in school. Both groups coexisted at the same time, is it wrong to suppose that they didn't get along?
 
That's one hypothesis. There are others.

There's some debate that sapiens and neanderthal may have interbred. Mitochondrial DNA does or does not support this, depending on what source you're looking at. The fact that neanderthal "traits" occasionally appear in certain human populations bears this out. Perhaps humanity simply assimilated the neanderthals?

I think it's a load of horsepuckey, but there you go. Some folks think this happened and they can provide evidence for it. Not enough for my liking, however.

Looking at the "average" neanderthal makeup (if there is such a thing, as they apparently varied as much as humans do today), it's easy to see that they're well adapted to the cold and somewhat specialized in that regard: broad flat noses, short and stocky build, etc. It may be that the less specialized sapiens merely spread faster, as they would have had a larger comfort zone that they could exist in.

I tend to think this one's correct. We spread further and reproduced faster. The rest took care of itself.

I like the term outperformed because it covers a lot of sins and for that reason, is probably the most accurate.

I'm sure that there was some fighting between the groups; as Otzi would've been able to attest to, we as a species have been killing each other for a very long time. It doesn't take a great leap of faith to imagine that neanderthals and sapiens killed one another, but I don't think that it was some great war or something, or that they necessarily killed one another on sight.
 
Why should I attempt to deny any consenting adult the right to allow another adult to share his civil affairs? (generic English "his") Why, exactly, should I be concerned that someone wants to delegate someone not a blood relative to speak on his behalf in medical and legal decisions? As long as it's a deliberate choice, why, exactly, should I be concerned? WHY?!

I don't know. I can't understand why any of us are supposed to be upset by people trying to find some love and dignity as they live out their lives. As a parent I want to be able to look my kids in the eye when they ask me about discrimination. And if it works out that they are gay then even more so.
 
You're good people.

I don't understand why so many folks want to force people to do any damn thing but live in peace. :(
 
I agree with Spectre and Mauirob on this side issue. I don't give a good hoot if gay people get married. I don't see it as a degradation of the family, only a redefinition of it. I know a gay couple who have adopted, and they are great parents. I don't consider their relationship any of my business just as mine is none of theirs.
 
aproy1101 said:
I agree with Spectre and Mauirob on this side issue. I don't give a good hoot if gay people get married. I don't see it as a degradation of the family, only a redefinition of it.

I would go less with a redefinition of it, and more with expanding it.

I'm pretty far to the right, look for the individualists, or the libertarians and you'll spot me someplace in the mix. I feel the same about mixed marriages and plural marriages. After all if someone thinks he can be happier with TWO wives who am I to argue?
 
Can you imagine what hell it must be to have multiple wives. Aargh. I can barely handle the one. I can say I definitely wouldn't want any more. Scary.
 
I basically think that whatever consenting adults want to do with/to each other is their business, absent conspicuous harm (murder, etc).

J
 
Bill Marsh said:
<snip>
The "Cash Spigot" at the VERY best enables limiting behavior --- behavior that limits individual success by weakening the desire to learn and the will to work. In my mind a man is nothing without a will to work and better himself and his family through honest labor.

<snip>

http://www.talltreefilms.com/jon/films/utopia/somethingreal/downloads/somethingreal.mov

This is a short film about just that subject...
It is the first of three, and is SOMEWHAT based on the Banks 'Culture' novels and stories, about a 'Post Scarcity' society...
 
Voodoo said:
Bravo Yvsa. My mother told me about alot of the things you mentioned (she is Shoshoni, and my father was part Seminole I'm told). Every time I hear people talk about slavery, reperations, etc. I always bring up that blacks were not the only slaves. This of course gets sort of pushed aside until I mention that it seems they think blacks are not as important as indians, at which point they quickly end the conversation.

Boo on reparations! Though I must admit, some of the wording in this article made it seem that the author was a bit....overly biased about his race relations.

Read his web site... He seems more 'overly biased' against stupidity in general...
He has a lot about race relations on his site, but the anger is not toward the black people, but toward a lot of the black leaders and white establishment that keeps them 'in their place' by giving them just what they want(in exchange for votes of course)
 
I am a Neanderthal......ask any of my former defendants, my current students, or my wife. I need no reparations......but I'm coming down squarely in Munk's corner on this one....and as your resident Neanderthal, I'm happy to admit that he probably expresses it better than I.
 
I think maybe I'm of a fit enough mind to finally post again. I sure as hell wasn't the last few days! :eek: :(

John is just one of the special folks here among many that I am very proud to be aquainted with and that I call, and in return am called, friend.

I think a few of you know that Barb and I have a daughter that is gay.
I'm the one that called it to Barb's attention as she had suspected but never was quite sure of. I came in the back door one day and "caught" Penny and Brenda holding hands. They jumped apart like they had been shot.
What a helluva way to have to live!!!!
Since that time when I brought it out into the open they act more like the old married couple they are and they don't flaunt it, just being themselves which the whole family appreciates.

Among the ndn people, or at least most tribes, the homosexual folks were looked on as being somewhat sacred or at the very least what some tribes called them, "The Two Spirit People," which was perfectly acceptable to the ndns and their general understanding of the Great Mystery.
 
Thread veer alert: we're moving into gay marriage territory. This seems worthy of its own thread.

I sometimes play the devil's advocate around here. I dislike it when I see an opinion presented and several pages of, "Yeah, I agree," following. I like to see the other side of the issue. I may not agree with it, but I like to know where folks are coming from. If no one else wants to voice it, I don't mind being the bad guy. I'd hope that most here know me well enough by now to understand what I'm doing. (Trolling? Not really, as my motives are different, but it's a fine line.)

But gay marriage? It's one of those issues that I really can't meet the other side halfway on. I just don't understand why people are opposed to this. I mean, it's been explained to me numerous times but it doesn't make sense. Perhaps I'm not seeing it clearly. Or, perhaps, it's not a rational response.

What I'm saying here is that this is one of the few topics where someone else will have to represent the opposing view. I wouldn't be able to do a convincing job of it.
 
Lion's Roar said:
I'm glad this thread is staying civil. It had flame potential.

More than ever, I am proud of you Cantina people.

A beautifully civil discussion on what could be a "Hot Topic."

I grew up in the 1950's and 1960's (some people say that I never 'grew up' just got older), but during this period of time I saw great changes. Some good and some bad.

During the 1950s we had a black housekeeper, Zebell was her name. I have no idea what Dad paid her. She was happy and very holy. She taught me more about the Bible than I ever learned in Sunday school.

She told me about how her husband, L.J., had come courting her in a buckboard wagon. She had a huge family and lived in a shack. But I have never known anyone with a happier life and disposition. Actually ALL of her family were like that.

Everyone worked, nobody complained and they had very good family values. In short, they were very much like our family.

Happy.

Then came the 1960s. At the time I did not like Martin Luther King and I also did not like JFK. Since then I have come to see some real good in their work.

However, ZeBell did not like them. One of the few times I saw her being serious. She felt that the 'order' was being upset by 'greedy politicians' who had 'their own good' ahead of 'what was right.'

That kids 'whose brains were still too smooth,' (had not yet gotten the walnut folds of an adult brain), were being 'confused.' Being told that they deserved better (they did), but 'did not know how to act.'

She understood that short term gain for the 'politicians' was going to hurt people in the longer run. I agree.

I saw division and unhappiness become the order of the day, for both black and white. I saw, on our TV, the frightened kids being forced into white schools, 'protected' by not only police, but also the National Guard.

At the time, I never understood the ruckus. Why did the black kids have to go to 'white' schools? It seemed that the black kids were actually being forced to attend.

Why did they not go to the same schools as us white kids anyway? Why was there this separation? Made no sense to me. I got along fine with ZeBell's kids. We went fishing together, we played together. Some of them I liked better than others, but it was never predicated on them being black.

I had a good education. I believe in education. I believe in one-ness of the human race and I believe that a lot on understanding can be gained by education.

In the 1960s I began to see division, frustration, anger and unhappiness. As black children began to learn in white schools, I saw the frustrated parents (who had been promised better lives by the politicians) actually undo their children’s education. Calling them “Uncle Toms” and “losing their roots” by buying into a ‘white education.’

This forced integration was accompanied by Sartre’s existentialism which seemed to say that people have rights solely because they exist. Well, they do and they don’t.

I don’t see that anyone, who CAN work, has the right to be supported because of their skin color and past injustices that occurred generations ago.

I see rights and responsibilities going hand in hand.

Yeah, injustices DID happen. Yeah, it WAS wrong. Yeah, things could be better, but my frustration is that people CAN do better.

BUT as long as anyone puts their future ---their ability to act and live --- in someone else’s hands, they will suffer. And that suffering will lead to rage, frustration and unhappiness.

I say, “Get OVER yourself! Quit whining and get a job!”

I have to admit something here. In the mid 1970s I married a woman who had a very high paying job. She encouraged me not to work, but to spend my time studying metaphysics. I did that. It was very easy and insidious how being a “house husband” can creep up on you.

We had plenty of money. I did not need to work. So too much of the time I sat around, watched TV, smoked pot and ate. One day I took a long hard look at myself. I was flabby, in body (90 pounds overweight), mind and spirit.

I did not like the way I looked or felt, so I went on a diet, and extreme exercise program and went back to work. I was happy.

Work, meaningful work and a good family and social life are necessary to LIVE, truly live. Maybe W.O.R.K. is an acronym for the Way Of Real Knowledge.

Excuse me, now, I have some WORK to do.

See y’all later
 
Back
Top