Taking things from white people

[unknown]

 

[unknown]

 

[Anti Federalist]

Censored post.

hxxps://x.com/UltraDane/status/1948062318832803853

 

[nikcers]

Censored post.

hxxps://x.com/UltraDane/status/1948062318832803853

The Twitter mirror works

https://xcancel.com/UltraDane/status/1948062318832803853

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

I grew up in the wrong era.

In retrospect, I could not be more glad to have grown up through that decade.

 

[jmdrake]

White hypocrisy on reparations is astounding. One of the survivors from the Tulsa massacre IS STILL FREAKING ALIVE! Meanwhile y'all never bitch about Ford and GM getting reparations for actually committing treason against the U.S. Oh, and that "founding stock" narrative is just creepy.

Kristi Williams, descendant of Tulsa Race Massacre survivors, speaks at FirstRepair event - Evanston RoundTable

FirstRepair, a nonprofit dedicated to supporting reparations efforts and the Black community, held a launch event Wednesday morning to introduce a

evanstonroundtable.com

Ford & the Nazi War Efforts | corpwatch

The Ford Motor Company's commercial-free sponsorship of NBC's airing of "Schindler's List," the epic movie about the Holocaust, was a class act. Nevertheless, it would be remiss of us here at CorpWatch, not to point out Ford's contribution to Nazi war efforts.

www.corpwatch.org

The outbreak of war in September 1939 resulted inevitably in the full conversion by GM and Ford of their Axis plants to the production of military aircraft and trucks.... On the ground, GM and Ford subsidiaries built nearly 90 percent of the armored "mule" 3-ton half-trucks and more than 70 percent of the Reich's medium and heavy-duty trucks. These vehicles, according to American intelligence reports, served as "the backbone of the German Army transportation system."....

After the cessation of hostilities, GM and Ford demanded reparations from the U.S. Government for wartime damages sustained by their Axis facilities as a result of Allied bombing... Ford received a little less than $1 million, primarily as a result of damages sustained by its military truck complex at Cologne...

 

[CaptUSA]

White hypocrisy on reparations is astounding.

Ok, gonna step in here...

Reparations, once adjudicated, should be extracted from the perpetrator and given to the victim. What non-racists object to is extracting money from non-perpetrators and giving it to non-victims, or descendants of victims.

 

[jmdrake]

Ok, gonna step in here...

Reparations, once adjudicated, should be extracted from the perpetrator and given to the victim. What non-racists object to is extracting money from non-perpetrators and giving it to non-victims, or descendants of victims.

So who was the victim of Ford and GM getting bombed by the allies? Like I said, white hypocrisy. Also under the theory of "corporate personhood" some of the "people" who benefited from slavery are still alive.



And we still have one of the victims from the Tulsa race riots who is still alive and was denied reparations. So spare me the "descendants of victims" argument.

Oh, and the FAMILIES of Jews who got deported during the Holocaust got reparations under Trump's first term!

U.S. to Pay Out New Reparations for Holocaust

The State Department announced on Wednesday that additional reparation payments would be made to victims of the Holocaust.

freebeacon.com

The reparations program was established by the United States with France under agreements relating to the deportation of Jews by the French government during the Holocaust.

France provided $60 million to the United States to distribute to Holocaust survivors and their living families under the agreement.

Sure, the money came from the French, but that's still "taking things from white people." No bitching about that. No protest of the Trump administration for that. And the French still haven't paid back the reparations they demanded from Haiti for the Haitians have the audacity to rebel against slavery. Nope. The hand wringing and pearl clutching only happens if there is a discussion about reparations for black people for anything. Not just slavery and not just to descendants from "non perpetrators."

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[CaptUSA]

So who was the victim of Ford and GM getting bombed by the allies? Like I said, white hypocrisy.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't responding to anything in particular except the claim of "white hypocrisy". You can still be against blanket reparations without being a hypocrite (regardless of your color).

In the case of Ford and GM, admittedly I'm ignorant on the details. But they had spent money on factories in a foreign country that were destroyed by the US military. Which means they, as victims, have a claim against the perpetrator. In court, though, those claims should have been declined because those factories were giving aid to an enemy.

And we still have one of the victims from the Tulsa race riots who is still alive and was denied reparations. So spare me the "descendants of victims" argument.

Yes, that victim is due reparations from the perpetrators. But it needs to be adjudicated in court. That fiasco, from my understanding, was a melee that arose from two factions of the population coming into conflict and erupting into violence and deaths and injuries on both sides. I'm not familiar with her case, but I'd have to ask who she is trying to get reparations from? The actual perpetrators of the violence, the city, the state, the federal government? Her case gets stronger the more she can identify the perpetrators and the damage done. Again, my understanding is that it was never proven that the city had conspired with either mob, but I'm sure there's a case if evidence could be provided.

Oh, and the FAMILIES of Jews who got deported during the Holocaust got reparations under Trump's first term!

Yeah, just ridiculous! You'll get no argument here.

 

[jmdrake]

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't responding to anything in particular except the claim of "white hypocrisy". You can still be against blanket reparations without being a hypocrite (regardless of your color).

In the case of Ford and GM, admittedly I'm ignorant on the details. But they had spent money on factories in a foreign country that were destroyed by the US military. Which means they, as victims, have a claim against the perpetrator. In court, though, those claims should have been declined because those factories were giving aid to an enemy.


Yes, that victim is due reparations from the perpetrators. But it needs to be adjudicated in court. That fiasco, from my understanding, was a melee that arose from two factions of the population coming into conflict and erupting into violence and deaths and injuries on both sides. I'm not familiar with her case, but I'd have to ask who she is trying to get reparations from? The actual perpetrators of the violence, the city, the state, the federal government? Her case gets stronger the more she can identify the perpetrators and the damage done. Again, my understanding is that it was never proven that the city had conspired with either mob, but I'm sure there's a case if evidence could be provided.

Yeah, just ridiculous! You'll get no argument here.

To be 100% clear I'm pointing out that certain people, in general, get upset if and only if there is any claim of reparations being made in favor of black people. I've brought up the Ford/GM examples before though I don't expect everyone to have seen that. And as for the "perpetrators" well the reparations came from the U.S. government as a whole instead of from the actual politicians who supported the policy. In fact your argument about "blanket reparations' kind of fails here. Let's take the Ford/GM reparations. You are willing to accept the idea in theory that they might have been owed reparations but it should have been thrown out "in court" because of treason. First your "in court" point misses a basic fact of how reparations in general, and those reparations in particular, happened. It didn't go "to court." It was done by an act of congress. Second, let's consider a hypothetical where there is no treason involved. Like when Bill Clinton bombed the Sudanese aspirin factory as a "wag the dog" to distract from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Using your analysis, if that aspirin factory had been American owned they would have been owed reparations. But should those reparations be limited to the fortunes of Bill Clinton and everyone in the chain of command that dropped the bombs? Say if all of those people had already been bankrupt at that time? Typically when something is done "under the color of law" and as a part of an "official policy" of a particular government, that government entity itself pays up. That's been the way reparations have been done since before the U.S. even existed. Applying that to the Tulsa riots, to the extent that local governments participated in the violence.

Tulsa Massacre: DOJ report acknowledges violence against Greenwood’s Black community a century late | Milwaukee Independent

www.milwaukeeindependent.com

The report highlights the role of the local government in not only failing to prevent the violence but in actively contributing to it. White Tulsans took part in the mass destruction, as law enforcement not only declined to protect Greenwood residents but disarmed them, and held them in makeshift internment camps in the Tulsa Fairgrounds and other sites. Meanwhile, White vigilantes looted Black homes and businesses with impunity.

So why is it okay for a government to pay reparations to a multinational corporation for actions the government took but not for a government to pay reparations to individuals for actions the government took? The U.S. government paid reparations to Japanese Americans interned after WW 2 and set up a "public education fund to finance efforts to inform the public about the internment of such individuals so as to prevent the recurrence of any similar event." (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Liberties_Act_of_1988) People only have a problem with actions like this when they are proposed (not done, just "proposed") for black people. Giving the Tulsa survivor (now over 100) reparations ticks off all of the boxes you claim to be required for reparations.

 

[TheTexan]

So why is it okay for a government to pay reparations to a multinational corporation for actions the government took but not for a government to pay reparations to individuals

What's really bullshit is that Lincoln paid reparations to slaveowners in D.C. but he didn't pay reparations to slaveowners in the rest of the country.

I'm still waiting for my reparations check. Accounting for inflation I'm owed well north of $1 million

 

[jmdrake]

What's really bullshit is that Lincoln paid reparations to slaveowners in D.C. but he didn't pay reparations to slaveowners in the rest of the country.

I'm still waiting for my reparations check. Accounting for inflation I'm owed well north of $1 million

Well one group of slave states had already seceded. The slave states that didn't secede (Kentucky for example) rejected Lincoln's compensated emancipation proposal. He was only able to force D.C. to take the deal because D.C. isn't actually a state. And then, before reconstruction was over, a Southern sympathizer shot it. They basically did it to themselves.

 

[CaptUSA]

You are willing to accept the idea in theory that they might have been owed reparations but it should have been thrown out "in court" because of treason. First your "in court" point misses a basic fact of how reparations in general, and those reparations in particular, happened. It didn't go "to court." It was done by an act of congress.

Yeah, I admitted ignorance here. I guess the Ford and GM lobbyists got their politicians to do them favors, then. I would have been against that.

Second, let's consider a hypothetical where there is no treason involved. Like when Bill Clinton bombed the Sudanese aspirin factoTo be 100% clear I'm pointing out that certain people, in general, get upset if and only if there is any claim of reparations being made in favor of black people. I've brought up the Fry as a "wag the dog" to distract from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Using your analysis, if that aspirin factory had been American owned they would have been owed reparations. But should those reparations be limited to the fortunes of Bill Clinton and everyone in the chain of command that dropped the bombs?

If that factory was owned by an American company, they certainly could sue for reparations. I wish it'd come directly from the Clintons, but unfortunately, taxpayers get screwed when governments harm people. But you wouldn't sue future taxpayers for the actions of a previous government that the current taxpayers had no control over.

The report highlights the role of the local government in not only failing to prevent the violence but in actively contributing to it. White Tulsans took part in the mass destruction, as law enforcement not only declined to protect Greenwood residents but disarmed them, and held them in makeshift internment camps in the Tulsa Fairgrounds and other sites. Meanwhile, White vigilantes looted Black homes and businesses with impunity.

So why is it okay for a government to pay reparations to a multinational corporation for actions the government took but not for a government to pay reparations to individuals for actions the government took? The U.S. government paid reparations to Japanese Americans interned after WW 2 and set up a "public education fund to finance efforts to inform the public about the internment of such individuals so as to prevent the recurrence of any similar event." (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Liberties_Act_of_1988) People only have a problem with actions like this when they are proposed (not done, just "proposed") for black people. Giving the Tulsa survivor (now over 100) reparations ticks off all of the boxes you claim to be required for reparations.

So again, I may have been wrong. My understanding was that it was unclear if it was the mobs who caused the violence and to what extent the city contributed. According to that report, though, the city should have had to pay reparations for their part. But the city taxpayers of 1921 - not the taxpayers of 2025. I'm sure that will seem like an injustice and it sure is, injustices happen way too often - but a second injustice to current taxpayers is no remedy.

Again, I'll state:

Reparations, once adjudicated, should be extracted from the perpetrator and given to the victim. What non-racists object to is extracting money from non-perpetrators and giving it to non-victims, or descendants of victims.

 

[jmdrake]

Yeah, I admitted ignorance here. I guess the Ford and GM lobbyists got their politicians to do them favors, then. I would have been against that.

If that factory was owned by an American company, they certainly could sue for reparations. I wish it'd come directly from the Clintons, but unfortunately, taxpayers get screwed when governments harm people. But you wouldn't sue future taxpayers for the actions of a previous government that the current taxpayers had no control over.

So again, I may have been wrong. My understanding was that it was unclear if it was the mobs who caused the violence and to what extent the city contributed. According to that report, though, the city should have had to pay reparations for their part. But the city taxpayers of 1921 - not the taxpayers of 2025. I'm sure that will seem like an injustice and it sure is, injustices happen way too often - but a second injustice to current taxpayers is no remedy.

Again, I'll state:

To the extend that current taxpayers financially benefited from the actions of their parents it is not unjust for them to have to return that money. And how do you know that all of the past taxpayers are dead? Certainly many of them were still alive when the Tulsa survivor first started attempting to get reparations. Ford and GM received reparations in 1974. That's just 54 years after he Tulsa riots. And I get it. Ford and GM have better lobbyists, they shouldn't have gotten anything, etc etc and you didn't know about this before but you do NOW. I have a major problem with people only bringing up slavery reparations out of the blue, as @Anti Federalist just did, as some sort of unique injustice to even consider while simultaneously ignoring all of the examples of reparations that have already been paid that I repeatedly bring up on this forum. And the context in which he brought it up, that there is some sort of moral equivalency to white people pushing the idea of "heritage citizenship" and African Americans seeking some sort of redress for the past is particularly repugnant especially considering the history of reparations that have already been paid to other groups in this country. It's similar to the repugnant idea that white South Africans should be given temporary protected status over fake claims of "white genocide" in South Africa combined with unrealized threats by one loudmouth politician with no real power while acting like Haitians who are not bothering anybody but simply working hard, staying off of drugs, and improving their communities should not be given protection from being returned to what everyone admits is an extremely dangerous situation. Sure he has his right to his opinion and I have my right to rebuttal.

 

[TheTexan]

Asians come to this country with nothing but the shirt on their back and their children become doctors and lawyers and shit.

Blacks have been in this country for generations and their children become drug dealers, gang members, and rarely, NBA players.

Which proves to me that blacks as a group don't give a shit about escaping generational poverty. They just want free stuff.

 

[TheTexan]

Blacks should give us reparations for all the welfare, college assistance, and DEI we've given them. They squandered all of it.

Welfare is supposed to be a safety net, not a primary occupation

 

[jmdrake]

Asians come to this country with nothing but the shirt on their back and their children become doctors and lawyers and shit.

Blacks have been in this country for generations and their children become drug dealers, gang members, and rarely, NBA players.

Which proves to me that blacks as a group don't give a shit about escaping generational poverty. They just want free stuff.

According to the chart put up by @Anti Federalist African and Asian immigration falls into the same category.