ADOS

[debso]

It's so sad how we are so lost.

We dont know who we are.
We dont know each other.
We dont know where we come from.
We dont have a plan.
We remain divided and you literally have ppl pushing to further the divide in an attempt to "get theirs" while blaming each other for getting in the way of what was taken from all of us.

Africa was robbed of everything including its ppl. Africa continues to be exploited and colonized as we speak. The entire diaspora, 1st/2nd generation African immigrants or not are under the system of white supremacy and we all have to break the chains of indoctrination.

We all need to unify and get everything we deserve.

 

[tyonenine]

Much of Africa is a mess, and they have to fix their problems on their own. We can’t help them.

People throw that broad Pan Africanist term around.

What are examples of actual Pan African progress or tangibles that concern black Americans?

 

[largofool]

nytimes.com

Opinion | When Slaveowners Got Reparations

7-9 minutes
Lincoln signed a bill in 1862 that paid up to $300 for every enslaved person freed.

By Tera W. Hunter

Dr. Hunter, a professor of American history and African-American studies, specializes in the 19th and 20th centuries.

• April 16, 2019

The Capitol stands in the background of this 1830 engraving.CreditLibrary of Congress/Corbis, via VCG, via Getty Images

Image

The Capitol stands in the background of this 1830 engraving.CreditCreditLibrary of Congress/Corbis, via VCG, via Getty Images
On April 16, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill emancipating enslaved people in Washington, the end of a long struggle. But to ease slaveowners’ pain, the District of Columbia Emancipation Act paid those loyal to the Union up to $300 for every enslaved person freed.

That’s right, slaveowners got reparations. Enslaved African-Americans got nothing for their generations of stolen bodies, snatched children and expropriated labor other than their mere release from legal bondage.

The compensation clause is not likely to be celebrated today. But as the debate about reparations for slavery intensifies, it is important to remember that slaveowners, far more than enslaved people, were always the primary beneficiaries of public largess.

The act is notable because it was the first time that the federal government authorized abolition of slavery, which hastened its demise in Virginia and Maryland as runaways from these states fled to Washington. It offered concrete proof to enslaved people and their allies that the federal government might facilitate the destruction of slavery everywhere. And it confirmed the worst fears of their foes about an interloping tyrannical president.

Abraham Lincoln, however, was anxious to preserve his fragile alliance with loyal slaveholders. He had advocated abolition of slavery in Washington in 1849 as a congressman, to no avail. As president, he encouraged the border states to voluntarily end slavery. He chose Delaware as an ideal place to take the lead in late 1861. But it became clear that Union slaveowners could not be so easily persuaded. This reinforced the need to make congressional emancipation conditioned on compensating them, which put abolitionists in a bind.

They welcomed the end of slavery in the capital, but chafed at payments that validated the right to own property in the form of human beings. “If compensation is to be given at all,” the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison said at the National Anti-Slavery Convention in Philadelphia in 1833, “it should be given to the outraged and guiltless slaves, and not to those who have plundered and abused them.”

Moderate antislavery advocates like Lincoln did not agree. To the contrary, they believed that any manumission plan had to placate property rights that were buttressed by the Fifth Amendment, which required “just compensation” for government seizure of private assets.

Lincoln appointed a board of commissioners to oversee the process of compensation, headed by the North Carolina abolitionist and New York Times reporter Daniel Reaves Goodloe. The board reviewed more than 1,000 slaveholders’ petitions to claim more than 3,000 enslaved people, close to the entirety of the dwindling population. Most of the petitioners received the full amount allowed. The largest individual payout was $18,000 for 69 slaves.

Although the District of Columbia Emancipation Act marked the only time the federal government would compensate slaveowners, there is a longer history of slaveowners requesting and receiving indemnification for the loss of their chattel.

Slaveowners felt entitled to and often received compensation from local, colonial and state legislatures, especially in times of crisis — when enslaved women and men ran away, participated in rebellions or were executed for crimes. During the American Revolution, owners asked to be compensated when bondspeople had died while working in lead mines in Virginia, for example, and when they sided with the British and ran away.

After the revolution, as Northern states carried out gradual-emancipation plans, compensation was attractive to slaveowners seeking to ease their financial burdens. The 1804 Gradual Abolition Act in New Jersey, for example, did not free anyone immediately. It allowed children of enslaved women to be treated as “apprentices” (slavery by another name) until they reached a certain age and would be freed. The law included a clause that allowed slaveowners to gain compensation by letting their bondspeople go free and then reclaiming them as “bound out labor,” which gave them access to state funds for their troubles.

In a break from tradition in the 1850s, the abolitionist Elihu Burritt organized the National Compensated Emancipation Convention in Cleveland to advocate payments to slaveowners, as well as smaller sums to be paid to the people they had enslaved. Nothing came of his dual proposal, however.

To be sure, the major benefactors of slaveowner reparations within the Atlantic slave system were Europeans. When England abolished slavery in its Caribbean colonies, it offered compensation to 46,000 slaveowners at the cost of around $26.2 million.

France went further by penalizing Haiti for the revolution that abolished slavery in its former colony St. Domingue. It levied a huge sum on the island, which crippled it in decades of debt. Former slaves were forced to pay indemnities to former slaveowners in exchange for official recognition as the first black independent nation-state in the Western Hemisphere.

The long and insistent coupling of compensation for slaveowners with emancipation is useful for consideration in current debates about reparations for the descendants of the enslaved. Critics and skeptics are fond of saying that enslaved people should have asked for recompense back then. African-Americans did precisely that, going back to the colonial era. They petitioned for “freedom dues,” they sued the estates of former masters for their unrequited toil, and they asked for land to restart their lives as free men and women. Relatively few of those efforts were successful.

An overwhelming majority of white people believed that slaveowners, not enslaved African-Americans, deserved recompense for the benevolence of manumission. The only “reward” that was widely supported was colonization: a trip “back to Africa.” The act allocated $100,000 for the voluntary removal of the newly freed people (at $100 per person) to go to Liberia or Haiti, which rarely happened.

Preserving sacred property rights and moving the Negro problem offshore meant that there was no justice for enslaved African-Americans. All of the candidates running for president must support the federal government’s issuing of reparations to African-Americans who were economically affected by slavery. Justice requires this.

Tera W. Hunter (@TeraWHunter) is a professor of history and African-American studies at Princeton and the author of “Bound in Wedlock: Slave and Free Black Marriage in the Nineteenth Century.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

 

[deuce king]

interesting that you would reduce reparations to "begging white people for a check" and equate #ados demands for justice as "sitting around waiting for white mommy and white daddy to drop off a big bag of money".

I will continue to educate and encourage #ados to withhold voting for any democratic candidate who routinely campaigns in black neighborhoods, schools, and churches, who rely on the black vote to get into office, but then pass no substantial policies for ados. it's not about suppressing the vote. it's about leveraging it. this is a stick up. voting by definition and practice is a transactional exchange. you want us to vote for you? do something for us. the data shows you need us to win

blindly voting democratic will not end white supremacy. black people have been voting democrat since the civil rights movement ended and guess what.....still white supremacy. in fact, it was a Democrat who outlined and pushed for mass incarceration which targeted and pillaged our households and communities of its strong black strong black patriarchs.

your attempts to shame me into voting for a candidate that doesn't resonate with my needs are futile. so are your efforts of scaring me into giving it away because of the racists republicans.

I say that to say this......

deuce king #tangibles2020. No black agenda, no vote.

I’m not reducing reparations to anything other than what you have already stated champ. You yourself are sitting and waiting for white folks to drop a big bag of anything off at your front door. Your only action for this demand is to hold your breath and hope white folks have sympathy for you so that you don’t pass out or collapse on the ground. In response I say good luck with that....let us know how that turns out for you.

Who said anything about ENDING white supremacy. White supremacy has been around for 400 years now and going. I don’t see if ending anytime soon, although I want it to end. Voting helps slow up the effects of white supremacy by moving white supremacists from powerful political positions.

Also, I’m not trying to shame you into voting. You should already be ashamed that you are choosing not to vote in the first place. If you don’t feel some kind of regret, lack of unity within the black community, or feel that you are letting the ancestors down with your current non-voting position it truly says a lot about you largofool .

 

[largofool]

 

[sugafree]

Typical Africlowns wanna ride on the backs of ADOS fight and struggle that even allowed them to enter AmeriKKKa without fear of being lynched.

Ole"is it safe to come to AmeriKKKa yet ADOS???"

We are not the same people...

 

[Nouss]

Typical Africlowns wanna ride on the backs of ADOS fight and struggle that even allowed them to enter AmeriKKKa without fear of being lynched.

Ole"is it safe to come to AmeriKKKa yet ADOS???"

We are not the same people...

 

[theafricandream]

Typical Africlowns wanna ride on the backs of ADOS fight and struggle that even allowed them to enter AmeriKKKa without fear of being lynched.

Ole"is it safe to come to AmeriKKKa yet ADOS???"


We are not the same people...

Lol...

 

[ggarvinxx3]

Yeah...
I still feel like anti pan africanism is some white supremacy bull****. Confusion and division are tactics used by the enemy.

We keep falling into the same traps. Knowledge of self is underrated. We need to know who we are and really understand how our enemy moves.

Facts bro, I feel you 100%. We don’t need any more division, and “us” vs “them.” Personally, I think Pan-Africanism is the way. We should be able to champion the causes for blacks here, just as well as anywhere throughout the diaspora. I understand the criticism of ADOS not being collective, but I don’t think that’s enough to dismiss their case entirely. Maybe they need a better communications department lol.

Ok so I ask this question, what has Pan-Africanism done for black Americans lately? The honorable Marcus Mossiah Garvey was decades ago and most of his culture and business acumen isn't preached in today's version of it. How is it benefiting us NOW?

We have our African brothers and sisters come over here and separate from us. I see it in my community all the time. It's just as bad as the Jewish community buying properties, Asians owning nail and beauty supply stores, Hispanics with bodegas and mechanic spots, middle Easterns with liquor stores, etc.

We got our African brothers and sisters opening up hair shops but there's no business/ financial unity they keep it amongst themselves. And you know what....

I have NO problem with that but when we ask for ours we should not be met with disdain and people saying "Pan-Africanism is the way" because truth be told it's not and it hasn't been for a long time.

Where is the olive branch extended from the other side? Instead we get called akatas and they separate from us as a society. Today's Pan-Africanist movement seems one side with no benefit to us (ADOS).

Btw please prove me wrong and I'll eat my words, I'm man enough to admit that but again I just don't see the benefit of it really just sounds like a deflection mechanism because we (ADOS) are rising up with demands to empower our community.

 

[theafricandream]

Ok so I ask this question, what has Pan-Africanism done for black Americans lately? The honorable Marcus Mossiah Garvey was decades ago and most of his culture and business acumen isn't preached in today's version of it. How is it benefiting us NOW?

We have our African brothers and sisters come over here and separate from us. I see it in my community all the time. It's just as bad as the Jewish community buying properties, Asians owning nail and beauty supply stores, Hispanics with bodegas and mechanic spots, middle Easterns with liquor stores, etc.

We got our African brothers and sisters opening up hair shops but there's no business/ financial unity they keep it amongst themselves. And you know what....

I have NO problem with that but when we ask for ours we should not be met with disdain and people saying "Pan-Africanism is the way" because truth be told it's not and it hasn't been for a long time.

Where is the olive branch extended from the other side? Instead we get called akatas and they separate from us as a society. Today's Pan-Africanist movement seems one side with no benefit to us (ADOS).

Btw please prove me wrong and I'll eat my words, I'm man enough to admit that but again I just don't see the benefit of it really just sounds like a deflection mechanism because we (ADOS) are rising up with demands to empower our community.

We are indeed different. As amazing as it is, sometimes I believe the diversity within the black race is a gift & a curse. I could just take one look at the ethnic divisions back in my home country. My folks came here in the 80s, and my older brother was called all types of African booty scratchers and got into a bunch of fights at school...it wasn't all love from our American brothers.

With that said though, white supremacy makes no distinction and has affected us all in some fashion. When cops pulled a gun on me when I was 11, I don't think they waited to determine my background.

I've never delegitimized the plight of black Americans, and I fully support the case for reparations. Perhaps my view on things is a bit simplistic and idealistic, but anywhere black folk have been oppressed and are fighting for their rights, I can get behind and support.

 

[theafricandream]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realsp...to-pay-it-back/amp/?__twitter_impression=true


In 1825, Haiti Paid France $21 Billion To Preserve Its Independence -- Time For France To Pay It Back
Capital FlowsContributor
Guest commentary curated by Forbes Opinion. Avik Roy, Opinion Editor.
GUEST POST WRITTEN BY

Dan Sperling

Sperling is a Virginia-based writer who is married to a Haitian national.

‘We can spend 30 years and we’ll never bounce back,’ said Duvanel Francois, 42, who was trying to earn school fees one morning in a tiny village outside of Jeremie, the Grand’Anse capital, by helping another farmer rebuild his home. (Patrick Farrell/Miami Herald/TNS via Getty Images)

The devastation wreaked on Haiti by Hurricane Matthew last fall was just the latest in a seemingly endless string of misfortunes that have befallen that country, which in March concluded a year-long interlude of caretaker governance by installing banana exporter Jovenel Moïse as its 58th president. Moïse faces a daunting task; Haiti’s chronic status as the Western hemisphere’s poorest nation is due to a litany of afflictions that range from widespread illiteracy, to endemic corruption, to woefully inadequate infrastructure. But while these would be hard enough for any country to overcome, for more than a century of its existence Haiti carried an additional but little-known millstone, the effects of which are still being felt.


In 1825, barely two decades after winning its independence against all odds, Haiti was forced to begin paying enormous “reparations” to the French slaveholders it had overthrown. Those payments would have been a staggering burden for any fledgling nation, but Haiti wasn’t just any fledgling nation; it was a republic formed and led by blacks who’d risen up against the institution of slavery. As such, Haiti’s independence was viewed as a threat by all slave-owning countries – the United States included – and its very existence rankled racist sensibilities globally. Thus Haiti – tiny, impoverished and all alone in a hostile world – had little choice but to accede to France’s reparation demands, which were delivered to Port-au-Prince by a fleet of heavily armed warships in 1825.

By complying with an ultimatum that amounted to extortion, Haiti gained immunity from French military invasion, relief from political and economic isolation – and a crippling debt that took 122 years to pay off. My father-in-law still recalls the patriotic song he was taught as a Haitian schoolboy, its poignant lyrics urging all Haitians to reach into their own pockets to help their government raise the amount that was still “owed” to France. Thanks to voluntary contributions from Haiti’s citizens, most of whom were desperately poor, that debt was finally settled in 1947. But decades of making regular payments had rendered the Haitian government chronically insolvent, helping to create a pervasive climate of instability from which the country still hasn’t recovered.

France’s demand for reparations from Haiti seems comically outrageous today – equivalent to a kidnapper suing his escaped hostage for the cost of fixing a window that had been broken during the escape. And though the present French government can’t be blamed for the gall of King Charles X (France’s ruler in 1825), a modicum of historical accountability sure would be nice. While France still ranks among the world’s wealthiest nations, Haiti – with a per-capita annual income of $350, a power grid that fails on a regular basis and a network of roads that’s more than 50-percent unpaved – is plagued by drought, food shortages and a struggling economy. For the “crime” of shaking off the yoke of involuntary servitude, Haiti dutifully paid France reparations over the course of nearly six generations – with interest. France should now do the right thing and return those payments, estimated to total $21 billion in today’s dollars. What would be a relative pittance in the French national budget is desperately needed by Haiti and could help it begin a broad-based recovery that would seem like manna from heaven to its long-suffering people.

 

[hand2handking]

My folks came here in the 80s, and my older brother was called all types of African booty scratchers and got into a bunch of fights at school...it wasn't all love from our American brothers.

shhh you cant say stuff like that

immigrants come here and have it great

 

[lamekilla]

Typical Africlowns wanna ride on the backs of ADOS fight and struggle that even allowed them to enter AmeriKKKa without fear of being lynched.

 

[Maximus Meridius]

nytimes.com

Opinion | When Slaveowners Got Reparations

7-9 minutes
Lincoln signed a bill in 1862 that paid up to $300 for every enslaved person freed.

By Tera W. Hunter

Dr. Hunter, a professor of American history and African-American studies, specializes in the 19th and 20th centuries.

• April 16, 2019

The Capitol stands in the background of this 1830 engraving.CreditLibrary of Congress/Corbis, via VCG, via Getty Images

Image

The Capitol stands in the background of this 1830 engraving.CreditCreditLibrary of Congress/Corbis, via VCG, via Getty Images
On April 16, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill emancipating enslaved people in Washington, the end of a long struggle. But to ease slaveowners’ pain, the District of Columbia Emancipation Act paid those loyal to the Union up to $300 for every enslaved person freed.

That’s right, slaveowners got reparations. Enslaved African-Americans got nothing for their generations of stolen bodies, snatched children and expropriated labor other than their mere release from legal bondage.

The compensation clause is not likely to be celebrated today. But as the debate about reparations for slavery intensifies, it is important to remember that slaveowners, far more than enslaved people, were always the primary beneficiaries of public largess.

The act is notable because it was the first time that the federal government authorized abolition of slavery, which hastened its demise in Virginia and Maryland as runaways from these states fled to Washington. It offered concrete proof to enslaved people and their allies that the federal government might facilitate the destruction of slavery everywhere. And it confirmed the worst fears of their foes about an interloping tyrannical president.

Abraham Lincoln, however, was anxious to preserve his fragile alliance with loyal slaveholders. He had advocated abolition of slavery in Washington in 1849 as a congressman, to no avail. As president, he encouraged the border states to voluntarily end slavery. He chose Delaware as an ideal place to take the lead in late 1861. But it became clear that Union slaveowners could not be so easily persuaded. This reinforced the need to make congressional emancipation conditioned on compensating them, which put abolitionists in a bind.

They welcomed the end of slavery in the capital, but chafed at payments that validated the right to own property in the form of human beings. “If compensation is to be given at all,” the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison said at the National Anti-Slavery Convention in Philadelphia in 1833, “it should be given to the outraged and guiltless slaves, and not to those who have plundered and abused them.”

Moderate antislavery advocates like Lincoln did not agree. To the contrary, they believed that any manumission plan had to placate property rights that were buttressed by the Fifth Amendment, which required “just compensation” for government seizure of private assets.

Lincoln appointed a board of commissioners to oversee the process of compensation, headed by the North Carolina abolitionist and New York Times reporter Daniel Reaves Goodloe. The board reviewed more than 1,000 slaveholders’ petitions to claim more than 3,000 enslaved people, close to the entirety of the dwindling population. Most of the petitioners received the full amount allowed. The largest individual payout was $18,000 for 69 slaves.

Although the District of Columbia Emancipation Act marked the only time the federal government would compensate slaveowners, there is a longer history of slaveowners requesting and receiving indemnification for the loss of their chattel.

Slaveowners felt entitled to and often received compensation from local, colonial and state legislatures, especially in times of crisis — when enslaved women and men ran away, participated in rebellions or were executed for crimes. During the American Revolution, owners asked to be compensated when bondspeople had died while working in lead mines in Virginia, for example, and when they sided with the British and ran away.

After the revolution, as Northern states carried out gradual-emancipation plans, compensation was attractive to slaveowners seeking to ease their financial burdens. The 1804 Gradual Abolition Act in New Jersey, for example, did not free anyone immediately. It allowed children of enslaved women to be treated as “apprentices” (slavery by another name) until they reached a certain age and would be freed. The law included a clause that allowed slaveowners to gain compensation by letting their bondspeople go free and then reclaiming them as “bound out labor,” which gave them access to state funds for their troubles.

In a break from tradition in the 1850s, the abolitionist Elihu Burritt organized the National Compensated Emancipation Convention in Cleveland to advocate payments to slaveowners, as well as smaller sums to be paid to the people they had enslaved. Nothing came of his dual proposal, however.

To be sure, the major benefactors of slaveowner reparations within the Atlantic slave system were Europeans. When England abolished slavery in its Caribbean colonies, it offered compensation to 46,000 slaveowners at the cost of around $26.2 million.

France went further by penalizing Haiti for the revolution that abolished slavery in its former colony St. Domingue. It levied a huge sum on the island, which crippled it in decades of debt. Former slaves were forced to pay indemnities to former slaveowners in exchange for official recognition as the first black independent nation-state in the Western Hemisphere.

The long and insistent coupling of compensation for slaveowners with emancipation is useful for consideration in current debates about reparations for the descendants of the enslaved. Critics and skeptics are fond of saying that enslaved people should have asked for recompense back then. African-Americans did precisely that, going back to the colonial era. They petitioned for “freedom dues,” they sued the estates of former masters for their unrequited toil, and they asked for land to restart their lives as free men and women. Relatively few of those efforts were successful.

An overwhelming majority of white people believed that slaveowners, not enslaved African-Americans, deserved recompense for the benevolence of manumission. The only “reward” that was widely supported was colonization: a trip “back to Africa.” The act allocated $100,000 for the voluntary removal of the newly freed people (at $100 per person) to go to Liberia or Haiti, which rarely happened.

Preserving sacred property rights and moving the Negro problem offshore meant that there was no justice for enslaved African-Americans. All of the candidates running for president must support the federal government’s issuing of reparations to African-Americans who were economically affected by slavery. Justice requires this.

Tera W. Hunter (@TeraWHunter) is a professor of history and African-American studies at Princeton and the author of “Bound in Wedlock: Slave and Free Black Marriage in the Nineteenth Century.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

**** crazy. Slave owners got more benefits. At this point anybody against reparations for black americans it's something wrong with them.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realsp...to-pay-it-back/amp/?__twitter_impression=true


In 1825, Haiti Paid France $21 Billion To Preserve Its Independence -- Time For France To Pay It Back
Capital FlowsContributor
Guest commentary curated by Forbes Opinion. Avik Roy, Opinion Editor.
GUEST POST WRITTEN BY

Dan Sperling

Sperling is a Virginia-based writer who is married to a Haitian national.

‘We can spend 30 years and we’ll never bounce back,’ said Duvanel Francois, 42, who was trying to earn school fees one morning in a tiny village outside of Jeremie, the Grand’Anse capital, by helping another farmer rebuild his home. (Patrick Farrell/Miami Herald/TNS via Getty Images)

The devastation wreaked on Haiti by Hurricane Matthew last fall was just the latest in a seemingly endless string of misfortunes that have befallen that country, which in March concluded a year-long interlude of caretaker governance by installing banana exporter Jovenel Moïse as its 58th president. Moïse faces a daunting task; Haiti’s chronic status as the Western hemisphere’s poorest nation is due to a litany of afflictions that range from widespread illiteracy, to endemic corruption, to woefully inadequate infrastructure. But while these would be hard enough for any country to overcome, for more than a century of its existence Haiti carried an additional but little-known millstone, the effects of which are still being felt.


In 1825, barely two decades after winning its independence against all odds, Haiti was forced to begin paying enormous “reparations” to the French slaveholders it had overthrown. Those payments would have been a staggering burden for any fledgling nation, but Haiti wasn’t just any fledgling nation; it was a republic formed and led by blacks who’d risen up against the institution of slavery. As such, Haiti’s independence was viewed as a threat by all slave-owning countries – the United States included – and its very existence rankled racist sensibilities globally. Thus Haiti – tiny, impoverished and all alone in a hostile world – had little choice but to accede to France’s reparation demands, which were delivered to Port-au-Prince by a fleet of heavily armed warships in 1825.

By complying with an ultimatum that amounted to extortion, Haiti gained immunity from French military invasion, relief from political and economic isolation – and a crippling debt that took 122 years to pay off. My father-in-law still recalls the patriotic song he was taught as a Haitian schoolboy, its poignant lyrics urging all Haitians to reach into their own pockets to help their government raise the amount that was still “owed” to France. Thanks to voluntary contributions from Haiti’s citizens, most of whom were desperately poor, that debt was finally settled in 1947. But decades of making regular payments had rendered the Haitian government chronically insolvent, helping to create a pervasive climate of instability from which the country still hasn’t recovered.

France’s demand for reparations from Haiti seems comically outrageous today – equivalent to a kidnapper suing his escaped hostage for the cost of fixing a window that had been broken during the escape. And though the present French government can’t be blamed for the gall of King Charles X (France’s ruler in 1825), a modicum of historical accountability sure would be nice. While France still ranks among the world’s wealthiest nations, Haiti – with a per-capita annual income of $350, a power grid that fails on a regular basis and a network of roads that’s more than 50-percent unpaved – is plagued by drought, food shortages and a struggling economy. For the “crime” of shaking off the yoke of involuntary servitude, Haiti dutifully paid France reparations over the course of nearly six generations – with interest. France should now do the right thing and return those payments, estimated to total $21 billion in today’s dollars. What would be a relative pittance in the French national budget is desperately needed by Haiti and could help it begin a broad-based recovery that would seem like manna from heaven to its long-suffering people.

I seen this in a documentary. Just f'ed up and mind blowing. Haiti fought because they were tired of being enslaved and all the sick and evil things that came with it, beat the French *** and got their independence then had to turn around pay these sick people.

 

[KHUFU]

I came here for freedom, but I do not mind supporting the exploitation and oppression of others. MAGA.

 

[sugafree]

Clowns...

 

[ninjahood]

Typical Africlowns wanna ride on the backs of ADOS fight and struggle that even allowed them to enter AmeriKKKa without fear of being lynched.

Ole"is it safe to come to AmeriKKKa yet ADOS???"

We are not the same people...

immigrants have a way more patriotic aspriational view of America than people who were born here on average.

 

[cashbanks]

thread is toxic at this point.

**** sad man.

 

[sugafree]

We are not the same people...

 

[Maximus Meridius]

With that said though, white supremacy makes no distinction and has affected us all in some fashion. When cops pulled a gun on me when I was 11, I don't think they waited to determine my background.

That's really what it comes down to. America don't care what your background is. If you got brownskin and african features you the enemy to them, period.

 

[sugafree]

That's really what it comes down to. America don't care what your background is. If you got brownskin and african features you the enemy to them, period.

They gon learn..

 

[gry60]

Clowns...

I suppose the British are also clowns for letting that Black actress enter British nobility through marriage, but I'm sure you celebrated it.

I look at the decision to make that man chief differently (because I am somewhat familiar with how traditional matters are handled in West Africa): if that Chinese businessman is going to make money on our land, he has to live the way we do. You're gonna live by our customs, eat what we eat, and speak the language we speak.

Traditional titles are not handed out randomly over there; the people will expect you to follow their customs, and if you don't some people take it seriously enough to cause you real harm. That Chinese dude is not demanding anyone in Kano State speak Cantonese or Mandarin. If anything, he will be the one speaking Hausa.

This is completely different from the colonialism period the "dr" in your video alluded to: you won't find a picture of a European official in Africa in the late 19th/early 20th century donning traditional African attire. To this day, African languages are forbidden on school grounds in many countries (especially in former French colonies) in favor of the legacy languages of colonization. Local traditions were painted as backwards, savage, and satanic, and amulets were dropped in favor of bibles. The Europeans came, and we had to adopt their lifestyle or else.

 

[largofool]

 

[largofool]

At the end of the day most of these “no tangibles no vote” individuals are just waiting for a big bag of money to be dropped off to them. They don’t care what the amount is, they don’t care how big the bag is, and they damn sure don’t care where the bag is dropped off at. In other words as stated earlier they are looking for white mommy and white daddy to figure that out for them. Just like just about everything else in their lives.

Dudes talking about “we need land”....but nobody has said where at and how much when it comes to that even. Even if we do get land (which I hope we do) I doubt its going to be some beachfront property in Florida for all the East Coast brothas and sistas or some beachfront property in California for all the West Coast brothas and sistas. It will probably be some small piece of land out in the middle of the state of Montana somewhere. They’ll give 1 acre to 100 black people and say “you *****s divide this land among yourselves and have a nice day” Reparations paid. Negros will rejoice and be glad it is. That is what happens when you don’t have a SPECIFIC and DEFINITIVE agenda.

Smdh@deuce koon .... how are you so triggered by republicans but echo all of their racist ideologies

 

[deuce king]

Smdh@deuce koon .... how are you so triggered by republicans but echo all of their racist ideologies

Young LargoFool.......you can continue to wait on white mommy and daddy to take care of you if you want to. You are basically on the sidelines observing others at the blackjack table hoping to get a seat at the table and hoping to get dealt in but have absolutely no leverage or ability to join in yourself. You offer no real solutions and have no real counterpoints of substance. Just another uneducated kufi-wearing negro hoping to be heard. Bless your heart champ.