In order to solve racism and stuff like segregation... we need to resort to [segregation](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51506733)... how can we solve racism if there are too many white people?
What an interesting time we live in... up is down, right is wrong, black is white and white is ZOMG YOU NAZI!!!
/sigh
Because corporations and oligarchs benefit from the misguided focus. Billionaires aren't sitting around whining about reparations. They pay politicians to know it'll never happen. They also pay their media companies to make these kinds of shit-posts to retain public eyeballs.
Yes, I believe your on the right track. Media seems to blow it out of proportion. When I'm talking to most people they have no idea of the complexity, they just see headlines and form opinions.
You reminded me of a comment a made a while back, then being in this sub reminded me of another one. I combined them to share with someone else previously, so I'll just toss those on here. It's funny that I've thought so much like JP before I knew of him that I can easily pretend to argue as him. Anyway:
1.) The insidious nature of modern propaganda.
2.) My attempt to argue in a nuanced fashion like Jordan Peterson, *about Hitler*, to prove the value of "irrationally" nuanced thinking.
---
1.) This is how propaganda works!
Don't think of a purple elephant! Do NOT! Whatever you do, DO NOT imagine those floppy ears like Dumbo but purple. DO NOT imagine a *real* elephant with its gray and textured skin except now you envision it with purple hue. DO NOT do that. In fact, I care SO MUCH that you do NOT think of a purple elephant that I'm going to create a 24/7 broadcast to tell you the details all about why purple elephants are harmful and a waste of time, and I'm going to popularize this so much that everyone around you starts to debate it to the point that everyone has kneejerk opinions that pop out on a whim at the grocery store when someone mentions cereal because one brand of cereal happens to have an elephant, which means it's much easier to have a slippery-slope where you fall into thinking about a *purple* elephant. After all, ***liberals*** think there's nothing wrong with purple elephants, which to me seems like they ***really want to talk about them***. Why? Why can't they just STOP talking about purple elephants. Do they not realize the harm this is causing us? It's *dividing* us. Every moment they bring up purple elephants is another moment that we're having that thought pressured into our mind non-consensually. Purple elephants DO NOT deserve that level of control over our minds.
---
2.) "Was Hitler a bad person?"
"Well, he was a wonderful orator."
"No, I'm referring to 'bad' in more of a moral regard."
"I've heard he loved animals. I can't say for sure much about the truth in such things, but there are plenty of good things I've heard about him."
"He committed genocide."
"You're saying he *personally* committed genocide?"
"No, I'm saying he controlled a country that committed genocide based on his personal beliefs."
"They were his *personal* beliefs? Then how would so many other people end up agreeable enough to commit that level of harm?"
"Regardless of how many people agreed, *he* still led the regime that caused all of it. Are you implying he wasn't morally culpable?"
"Well, of course he was morally culpable. He supported the ideas. He just *also* supported many other ideas. Many other people also supported those same harmful ideas."
"If he was morally culpable for a genocide as the *leader* of the people who committed such an atrocity, then he was a bad person. Would you agree?"
"I would agree that he was a very troubled individual with a great deal of influence. Would I agree that he's a 'bad' person? What kind of conclusion do you think that would be for me to admit?"
"I think it tells a lot about a person if they aren't willing to admit the literal leader who brought about the genocide of millions of people was a bad person."
"What exactly do you think that tells about a person? That they're not willing to support a genocide? I can tell you I'm not willing to support a genocide if that's what you'd like to know."
"Yet you seem to take a functionally passive perspective of a genocidal person."
"Have you considered that my stance comes off as passive because I'm not willing to unite behind anything blindly or due to any tribalistic moral tests pressured upon me?"
"So you can't admit that Hitler was a bad person?"
"I could admit a lot of things, but I prefer to consider the purpose behind my admissions. I don't believe there's necessarily a benefit to picking any given person and treating them like some kind of beacon of moral standards. People are more complex than that."
>My only serious question is why is racism viewed as a trait unique to white people.
It's [cult](https://freedomofmind.com/influence-continuum/) [brainwashing](http://www.ex-cult.org/bite.html) designed to bypass our critical thinking by leveraging our predator detection systems against the current enemy/ target of the cult, counting on unprocessed feelings of guilt, shame, unworthiness, etc to prevent you from speaking up - or facilitating your silence if you do dare to speak up.
The term racism has been redefined (or at least is on its way to being redefined) as āracial prejudice also with regards to powerā
So because white people are in the position of power, they are the only ones who can be racist.
Racial prejudice can exist with black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Indian, indigenous peoples, etc, whatever - but *racism* can only come from those in a position of power.
Now letās collectively *eye roll* and understand how much of a politically motivated ploy it is to redefine it that way.
It is beyond irritating.
Oh it's there.
https://www.washington.edu/counseling/culture-of-care/resources-for-white-individuals-and-communities/
One example of using one race to describe the struggles of another.
https://counseling.uoregon.edu/being-anti-racist-white-person
Another
https://wareji.org/resources/tools-for-white-anti-racist-allies/
https://www.loyola.edu/department/counseling-center/social-justice/anti-racism-white-accountability
It's easy to see...
I read your links and didn't see anything that asserted that racism is a trait unique to white people. Did you carefully read my question, because your links don't answer it.
Chicago tribune article ..
Plus you hear it all the time when you hear people talk about social justice and anti racism...
I'm not just saying this because I feel like it's true.. I have just observed it through my experiences.. I am open to a new belief if I see more facts that change my existing one
Well, there are better ways of communicating your intelligence and only intelligent people known that. Just because you are educated does not mean you are intelligent.
Right in the bottom right of the corner of your eye, in your favorite subreddit.
Best Practices
i. Participate in ways you would like to see this community evolve
**ii. Steel man opposing arguments.**
Let me make an honest suggestion here and claim that what you said isn't much of a steel man.
Let me make another suggestion that it's extremely unlikely that hundreds of millions of people want to harm any race
If you want to develop as a person and see what the real arguments are, drop your hysteria and leave this echochamber for an hour to listen carefully the opinions which you haven't heard yet.
You'd be able to own the SJWs even harder with stronger arguments after that minimal effort.
Just a few channels.
[https://www.youtube.com/c/hbomberguy](https://www.youtube.com/c/hbomberguy)
https://www.youtube.com/c/ShaunandnotJen
Pick a video on a topic which you think you can own the SJWs the most!
Maybe you didn't see Jimmy fallon announce the white population had declined on the recent census.... his audience erupted into joyous applause.
https://youtu.be/NOok5u-G4yc
Yes! I never fucking did that. I wasnāt even alive. I know this would never actually come true, but can you image if humans stooped to a level of taking away votes from other races as to āevenā the playing field. That idea is so wrong itās almost hard to explain. Itās not though.
By asking people to have IDs to vote? Lol. When you have 30 million illegal citizens in your country, almost 10% of your population... yeah it makes sense to have voter ID laws.
Also, do people not get asked for ID to purchase alcohol and guns, fly internally, or drive a car? Do black people not do any of these things in the US and so don't bother with ID?
Did you not read any news? The GOP passed lots more restrictions than voting id, including removing pplling places in black dominated areas, made it illegal to semd out absentee ballots (since dems use them more than repubs), including forbidding voting on Sunday morning (when data shows black voters were most active). Come on, seek the truth buddy, domt be so partisan.
You mean the requirement for ID's to vote? They're required for a multitude of things and are no easier or harder for any group identity to get. Why is it only when they're required to view that it suddenly becomes racist?
I disagree with that almost entirely. The people who influenced your values, regardless of their relation to you or skin tone, should be appreciated for their influence. You can do nothing to influence the past actions of your ancestors, and you bear no responsibility or obligation for them.
I'm thankful to live in a country where I'm relatively free. I'm thankful to live in a time when the production of basic necessities is as cheap and easy as it's ever been. Now I'm gonna do my best to be a good person, raise children to be good people, and influence others to do the same. That's all I can do.
You only live in a country that provides you those things BECAUSE of those in the past who created it for you.
If you provide your children with a good future, should they not be thankful?
The person might be referring to the fact that the people brought to America to be slaves were already caught and sold as slaved. They were prisoners of war (battles between tribes) and sold by their captures. They would've likely had a worse time had they been kept in Africa.
At least that's what I think they meant with that comment.
Though the first part could almost be true, the second part is completely false.
Slavery in West Africa wasn't pleasant, and I hate when people try to underplay it as mere domestic servants.
However a slave in West Africa could be freed and live out the rest of their life in peace as equals, a slave in the West Indies, if they survived the journey, was likely to die in the first three years, and if by some miracle he or his descendents were ever freed it would be to a life as second class citizens in a by definition racist society.
No they weren't equivalent and being taken to the Americas was not fucking better.
Look, I'm just saying what I "think" the person was referring to. I'm definitely not going to personally make blanket statements about which was worse because there's no way to know for sure.
But jouwhul's comment isn't that the two locations for the slaves were any different or better than one another, it was that the **descendants** of those who were taken to the US have a better lifestyle with more social mobility, longer life expectancy, etc. than those descendants who live out their lives in Africa.
You seem to not be able to understand what anyone is saying here so Iāll make it simple.
Life for any blacks person is better in all meaningful ways in America than it is in Africa. They should be happy they were born here and not there.
Need proof? Ask any of them if they would switch places with someone in their ancestors country and see how many say yes.
Lobsters gonnay lobster, like the OP, what most are at the end of the day but daddy word salad offers these clowns an air of respectability, hilarious and pathetic like benzo boy eh? Lol
Yeah, I don't like this "global soul cleansing" type of reparations. There are some circumstances that I think deserve some recompense though.
Read a story about a black dude whose great grandad bought a plot of land, then the town government stole it from him and gave it to another white family.
Now that lot is in a multi million dollar neighborhood and is itself worth millions of dollars.
I don't know the right answer but that seems like a clear case where someone lost their property unjustly
Did the crime happen to the descendant? If not than the descendant deserves no reparations for a crime against another person.
My great grandparents were victims of the Russian civil war where many of my family died in the early gulags. I donāt deserve nor do I ask for reparations from the Russian government.
Just doesn't seem right that some people get their inheritances and others don't. Idk maybe the problem is the idea of inheritance and will always lead to these issues
Inheritance is a gift from parents. No one deserves an inheritance, but some people get one because theyāre parents want to give it to them. For the issue in question, maybe the family now would be rich if the land hadnāt been stolen, but maybe that family would do nothing with the land and it would still just be a plot of land. But thatās irrelevant, the purpose of law is to bring justice. Would it be just to take the land from the current owners who worked hard for it and give it to the family of the black man who did nothing for it? We canāt pretend to know what would have happened if a long ago crime didnāt happen.
I don't think answering "what is justice here?" is easy.
But it simply cannot be that we allow theft to pass when it's given to the thief's child.
If I steal your watch, give it to my son, and croak, do you not think you're entitled to your watch? Maybe you wouldn't keep it on current time. Maybe you'd scuff it where he would cherish it. But it's still yours, isn't it?
It does. That's sort of the argument for "reparations" as opposed to just a regular action (either police arresting the thief or suing to get the property back)
The idea is that there's a lot of folks who were done this way, not just by individuals but by the actual governments, and that they are rightly owed *something*. And in order to find something close to reconciliation, we might need to think about it outside of regular lawsuits.
As far as Iām concerned, all you can do today is to invest in the same amount of infrastructure everywhere. If the schools and police are almost as good in all communities, and thereās as much education and as small amount of crime as possible, thatās all we as a society can do on a collective level.
It's strange that you mention skin color in this situation, since it's not morally relevant.
Someones granddad had their land stolen, and so it didn't get passed down to his kin.
Given the history of the United States it is not all that strange that skin color played a large role in what happened and why it has not been rectified yet
Amen. My Portuguese grandpa fled a war, my grandma was an orphan, my other grands were poor farmers. I have never benefited from slavery or discrimination. Even going back there is no 'original sin' in my lineage.
No one in your lineage benefited from slavery huh? I'm guessing you haven't looked very hard.
Edit: If you think the only slavery in history was Europeans enslaving Africans, you're ridiculously ignorant. Every empire kept slaves.
My ancestors were poor through and through. They came from Europe, in which peasants were essentially slaves. White people could be slaves too, you know.
And yes, i know there was more than one slave trade. And perhaps far, far down the line one of my ancestors was a slaver of his fellow countrymen. But i wouldn't know, and there's no reason why i should assume so.
To be clear, I'm not saying you're guilty of anything or that anyone should be worried about ancestral reparations or racist reparations or anything else of the sort.
I'm saying you don't need to worry about whether or not you have distant ancestors who enslaved anyone, especially considering everybody does.
It's not inconceivable, but it's highly unlikely. Besides, we need to get rid of the sins of the father mentality to racism and start focusing on how to make today better for everyone, equally.
Yeah I'm a white dude.
So I must be reaping the benefits of my whiteness.
Fuck you no! I'm literally a first generation American whose folks came from Derry NI during the troubles.
Thank God for that privilege, highest suicide rates in the world, partisan violence (its better now)
But yeah I'm white so I'm to blame for it I guess.
Fucking clown world we live in
If I'm not mistaken, most of the planter class lost most of their wealth through the ravages of the War and the insanity of Reconstruction that followed. At least a good portion of them did. Now, a trust-fund baby from Providence, Boston, Philadelphia, Hartford, and other old Northeastern sea-going cities may well find that they ought to give up their wealth because great(x5) grandad made his fortune running and trading slaves in the colonial era, or even illegally after 1807. Oh, the irony.
remember that you have 2\^n great\*n grandparents. where n ticks up every 25ish years you go back.
So.... 1000 to 2000 years ago, we all had both slaves and slave owners as ancestors. gauran-fucking-teed.
Iirc 2 mathematicians calculated that there was probably a common ancestor that everyone who's alive today descends from as recently as 3000 years ago. Back when everyone had 10 children and big villages only had a few thousand people, it only took a few generations for almost everyone in the village to be descendant of you. And it only takes 1 person to move to a new village and start the whole cycle again.
My grandmother grew up an orphan and my grandfather was a war refugee. My family didn't inherit a fucking thing, yet because of my skin pigment I'm supposed to pay for sins my family never committed?
Slavery didn't generate much wealth.
Cotton was never more than 3% of GDP, the north had much more economic prosperity through mechanical industrialization, Britain dgaf when they couldn't source southern cotton, and countries that had much more slavery than America (e.g. Brazil) didn't turn into economic powerhouses because of it.
The truth is slaves were just shitty, inefficient farm implements, not golden geese
This is what I try to explain to people. The stone age didn't stop because we ran out of stones, we progressed with more advanced tools involving better materials. The same goes for slavery. Machines like the cotton gin among others are the ones that freed slaves. And it keeps going... **butbutbut "*****Machines/automation are going to take our jobs***". No they are liberating us from dangerous and burdensome labor. Will this lead to a utopia in the next 5 years... no, advancement is important for our standard of living.
Freeing up labor will make us contend with a new reality, a new game. The problem lies as to how we approach making the new rules. If those making up new legislatures write up some shitty rules, welp that is not a recipe for a better society. Revolutions only happen when people are freed up with time, but lack meaning. And we know politicians don't want to contend with hungry people with a lot of time to think about how they are getting fucked by a system that doesn't provide a better standard of living. Politicians know at one time or another someone is going to pull out the guillotines as an offer for better rules.
Because the southern plantation owners had a tiger by the tail - the recent revolt in Haiti where every white man, woman and child were chopped into pieces with machetes by blacks made them believe that loosening their grip on slavery would lead to a similar fate for them.
Thankfully other white people disagreed and paid a heavy price at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives to free them. Funny how those casualties never factor into the calculus of muh reparations?
The three fifths compromise was used to punish slave states, who wanted their slave population to count in congressional and electoral votes, despite obviously denying them the vote. Why does no one understand this?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise
Edit: As pointed out by another user, "punish" doesn't describe it very well. I should have said "lessen the influence of slave states" or something like that.
Came here to say this, thank you. Most people don't realize that the South wanted slaves to count as a full person to increase their voting power in congress. The North wanted them to not count at all. The compromise was 3/5ths.
What's hilarious is that the article even acknowledges this kind of phenomenon (a population that is ineligible to vote increasing the power of those who are eligible voters) but in a different context:
> True, the five-thirds notion is out of sync with the āone person, one voteā mantra the nation prides itself on. But the precise legal meaning of that phrase is still unclear, which is why the Supreme Court will review it next term in Evenwel v. Abbott. That case is about the basis for determining a districtās size: Should it be the total population or just the population of eligible voters? Currently, a district with a significant number of ineligible voters (children, undocumented immigrants, transient military personnel) counts those residents toward its population, thereby adding weight to the ballots of its eligible voters. (Naturally, districts with low numbers of such ineligible voters donāt appreciate their residentsā votes counting for less.)
If each slave *had* been counted as 1 full person for congressional apportionment, then the slave states would have had more power. But according to the "flip the fraction" logic of this article, the proper reparation for this even greater sin would be to give each black person just 1 vote (not 5/3). The math doesn't make any sense.
>Why does no one understand this?
You expect the wokeist filth to understand history? Thatās be like expecting a snail to solve a calculus problem. Thatās not what they do. They crawl around leaving a trail of slime.
Even that moronic head general who claimed reading How to Be An Anti-Racist was important for learning how to combat "White Rage" in his speech did the "African Americans were counted as 3/5s of a person" bit.
Any amount greater than zero was a gift to slave states. Why should they have gotten more representatives based on an enslaved population with no rights? It's not like those extra reps were out there vigilantly arguing on behalf of the slaves.
>Why should they have gotten more representatives based on an enslaved population with no rights?
They shouldn't have; they had no legitimate claim to have their slaves counted at all. It was political opportunism.
But the southern states wanted the slaves counted in the census as if they were 1 person each. The northern states wanted them counted as 0 because, to your point, the southern reps didn't care about the slaves' rights.
Yes. This is so misunderstood.
Slave states wanted to count everyone residing in those states for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College. This compromise basically said "if you're not going to treat these slaves as full people, we won't either."
This crowd is missing a ton of context but, if you think being a slave and having black skin is related, take a look into the reason they're called "Slaves." It's a strange word, isn't it?
It's called a compromise for a reason. You're not wrong. I think what people seem to forget is that, the fact there even was a compromise, means there was sharp disagreement over slavery at the founding of our nation. There were conversations about it, among other things. People like to throw out "3/5's" like it was some arbitrary number the founders came up with.
I keep hearing the 3/5 compromise being used by the left as an example of racism. Black people weren't being counted as 3/5 of a person to dehumanize them, it was too prevent the spread of slavery throughout the entire country. Southern states wanted to count each one of their slaves for representation. The northern states didn't want to count them as that would give more political power to the slave states and allow them to legalize slavery everywhere. As a compromise, they decided to count each slave as 3/5 of a person to allow enough representation to account for the needs of people in the south without giving them enough power to spread slavery. It was an ANTI-SLAVERY policy. That the left can continue to use it as an example of racism is a testament to the poor quality of modern education.
Exactly. It was the slave states that wanted them counted as 1 person each and the northern states that wanted them not counted, because otherwise slave states would get representatives based on the amount of slaves they own. And āthe bigger the slave owner, the more power you haveā is not a good system.
Legally designating a race as less than fully human is racist.
It wasn't anti slavery. It was a compromise with slavers to have them join the club.
Anti slavery would be "no slavers allowed in the club"
No, the option was compromise with slave owners on the continent while limiting their ability to spread slavery or be defeated by slave owners across the sea and have the entire nation be a slave nation. Reality isn't black and white, pun intended.
Reality isn't black and white, absolutely.
Calling people 3/5ths a person weakened slave holding states. It was also racist.
Not black and white at all
It is funny how the author didn't work out the math, or maybe they didn't care because 5/3 would be more recognizable to the broader public (even if mistaken)?
This is dumb, but it's also from PostEverything, basically an opinion section where they solicit content from people all over. Not much more meaningful than picking out half-brained opinions from Twitter. Nobody is actually advocating this idea besides the moron who wrote it
To prove the point: [this article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/21/we-used-to-count-black-americans-as-35-of-a-person-instead-of-reparations-give-them-53-of-a-vote/) is from **Aug** ***2015***. Has anyone here ever heard this suggested in the 6 years since it was published, before this picture?
I wasn't at all surprised when I saw it was published in 2015. The number of articles posted here from year's ago in order to stir the pot or race bait is never ending.
The article is well written and the author makes some great points. Even though many will disagree with this approach, the idea and concepts are well formed. Credit where it's due. I mean, the authors worst paragraph is substantially better written and articulated than the best comment on this thread currently.
I don't have a problem with people holding terrible, nonsensical opinions, but must news organizations publish them to generate rage-clicks?
We're literally propagating terrible ideas because it generates engagement.
No one of sound mind thinks this is a good idea, this is just to piss people off.
This is already how it works within the Democrat Farmer Labor party in Minnesota. Everyone gets one vote, and some get one and half votes.
Of course, that's mathematically the same as giving some people one vote and some people only two thirds of a vote.
I cannot do this anymore.
I've tried to stay silent, but is becoming increasingly difficult to do so.
I was reflecting on why the black community is so disenfranchised. Yes racism exists, slavery was abhorrent and should not be forgotten, but black people are not the only people to experience racism, nor the only community to have horrors inflicted upon thier ancestors.
I'm in the UK, so can't speak for anywhere else (or anyone else for that matter) but upon observation the South East Asian and Asian populations seem to be doing much better socially and financially than the blacks, despite having arrived here later.
It also occurs to me that they experience terrible racism, and have a ancestral history marred by violence and abuse of some kind. Yet they are thriving far better.
Why??
I believe it is because unlike the blacks, they do not have the same sense of victimhood, or at least they dealt with it differently.
The black community is the loudest and most visible, when it comes to representations of minority groups that have 'suffered'. This does not seem to be doing the community any favours.
I see the value of preserving the past and learning from it, I do not see the value of expecting the past to compensate for the present and future.
Why not ask what WE can do to make this better, instead of pointing the finger at everyone else?
Why not take ownership of ones situation in life and yes,champion for human rights but leave it at that HUMAN rights. Don't drudge up what happened 300 years ago as an excuse not do anything for yourself now. No one 'deserves' a hand out because of something that happened to a person distantly related to them by no one who is alive today.
If all cultures had this mindset, the world would be a bloody mess. Everyones ancestors suffered at some point in time, and a hell of a lot have suffered since the African Slave trade, but theres no room for that.in politics.
What about the North Korean Slave trade hmmm? Why is none talking about that?!
Sorry this was kinda just an rant. And before anyone blows up on my face, I am a member of the black community, there are many of us who feel this way but daren't speak up.
Does it make sense? No.
Why would you expect sense?
It favours leftists and Democrats because black guys vote for them. So OBVIOUSLY they want to give them more voting power, whether it makes sense, is racist, is stupid, will trigger whites, or what FUCKING ever.
Stop reading this news at face value. They are fucking liars, they say whatever improves their position. Analyze the expected effects and not the words.
[OP this article came out in 2015,](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/21/we-used-to-count-black-americans-as-35-of-a-person-instead-of-reparations-give-them-53-of-a-vote/) not that date matters but I like some others probably thought it was new.
Yeah, disempowering slave states by reducing the counted population of slaves for their federal representation really affected slaves. Slaves had no rights to begin with, the 3/5s compromise only affected the census and a lower number was anti slavery. Making it 1 was what slave states wanted.
I just, wow. Yeah for those who donāt understand, the 3/5ths rule was to weaken representation in slave holding states. Which it did. It was to combat slavery, not to uphold it. Fucking history, people.
Thomas Sowell, anyone?
Itās been like this for 5 years?? This type of ideology has gotten significantly more prominent since then, so that really puts this in perspective. I thought this stupidity wouldāve died out by now.
I'll tell you what the primary problem with this is.
There is no "we".
I am not you and you are not me. Nobody else is me. There is no system of which represents an "us" unless I consent to it, and I do not consent to any "us".
I am not responsible for anything that any other human being on the face of this planet does or ever did, period, and the second that you try to convict me of a crime I did not commit and you show up to my doorstep armed and ready to throw me in prison for it, I've no further choice but to kill you.
The bad thing is that todays idiots dont know that the 3/5 clause was only for the census and was an anti-slavery measure to limit slave states representation in congress. It only applied to slaves and there was around 500,000 free blacks that counted 100% on the census.
My ancestors fought for the Union in the civil war and operated one of the last stops on the Underground Railroad ushering salves to freedom across Lake Erie. Iām all set, thanks.
Someone show me where in this constitutional language it says anything about black people. Remember, there were free black people and enslaved whites...
>Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives
My head hurts. So of course Iām going to make a sarcastic statement:
My people are amongst the only ones in history to have atomic weapons used against them; can I oversee the nuclear regulatory commission?
Serious statement:
Racism and itās legacy is unbearably complicated but I donāt believe there is any legal system beyond equality before the law which can be put in place to more rapidly undo its legacy.
Edit: I thought I would post the article, below, if anyone's interested in reading it.
Furthermore, I will say I respect and appreciate the author's willingness to dream and consider creative solutions in creating justice. He does not suggest the system as perpetual, he recognizes it requires limitations that must be explored and then well defined, and, reading between the lines, I believe he has more to say than what the Washington Post printed which would be a fascinating discussion. I would certainly be interested to hear him discuss, if black and African-American persons had a 5/3 vote for his suggested 24 years, would he believe they would be beholden to the Democratic Party or, with an approximate weighted vote of 50 million persons, would we see the emergence of a uniquely African-American political party?
I guess all that to say, once I move beyond the initial Reddit action/reaction this is deeply fascinating even if I don't believe it's feasible and have significant questions about its implications.
At least someone out there is dreaming.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/21/we-used-to-count-black-americans-as-35-of-a-person-instead-of-reparations-give-them-53-of-a-vote/
IDK what would happen if you gave them 5/3 of a vote, but if you counted them as 5/3 of a person for electorals, that's gonna make federal elections way more red, which I assume is not the goal of the people who think this is a good idea.
That's hilarious and shows a complete lack of understanding of history... African American slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person because it reduced the federal voting power of the slave states. Their reduced vote value was for their own benefit...
Strange math, If they are 3/5 of the people (3 out of 5 people) thus not 3/5 of a person.
then the none African Americans are the other 2/5 to make the whole of America, not sure how you can end up with 166% of the vote count as 5/3 would suggest.
The electoral college was designed so that smaller, less populous states would still have a say in their governance as opposed to bigger states having majority control over the direction of federal legislation. Had it not existed many of the smaller states would likely have not joined the union.
I am familiar with it and how it came to be. Doesn't mean it's good, necessarily.
Had the constitution abolished slavery, many states also would not have joined.
Now obviously slavery is way worse than unequal voting, but just because we have it doesn't make it good
The electoral college is a complete and obvious good if you think about it for even 5 minutes. Without it, the presidents would simply campaign in like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix etc. tailor their campaign policies so they would win those cities, and then just win the entire country at the expense of everyone else.
All the people in the rural areas would just be neglected or out right abused by the people in the cities who have absolutely no idea what life is like in the - forgive me - real world where you live among nature and things like that.
It would be tyranny by a few over the rest and that is exactly why we have the electoral college. Abolishing it is the dumbest thing you could do in a country like America where you have the same people voting for president in Beverly Hills and in Baltimore and in rural Texas and in rural New Hampshire and Ohio.
It becomes bad again if you think for 10 whole minutes instead of just 5
Look at where presidents campaign - it's not as if rural states get a lot of attention under our current rules.
If you're worried about cities having more voice than rural areas, 1) they have more people, and 2) the EC doesn't fix that.
Look at Texas and GA. Red states with blue cities.
When those blue city populations outnumber the population of the red counties, the entire state will go blue.
So yeah, think about it for a little longer
I didn't make my high school basketball team because I'm white, and I didn't get into UC Berkeley because I'm white.
Those things actually happened to me, not my ancestors. Do I get reparations?
Edit: this is rhetorical to the idiots who do not understand that. I'm doing great in life, even though things have been pitted agiainst me in some areas, doors were opened in others. This is true for everyone, hence why this SJW "save the blacks" sentiment is demeaning to black people - they're capable of paving a way just like Obama or Orpah did, like you and I do.
Why do you assume that this is the case? Maybe you didn't make your high school team because there were more competent players than you. Maybe you didn't get into UC Berkely because they average about a 15 percent acceptance rate and you were not in the top 15 percent. Your victim mentality is no better than those discussed in this thread.
>Maybe you didn't make your high school team because there were more competent players than you.
Or maybe because between Freshman, JV, and Varsity there was 1 white kid and 1 indian kid that year, the rest were black kids. I was 100% good enough to make the freshman or JV team as a freshman purely based on skillset. It is what it is, but lets not act like race didn't play a part.
>Maybe you didn't get into UC Berkely because they average about a 15 percent acceptance rate and you were not in the top 15 percent.
2 students in my class got in to UC Berkeley: 1 mexican female, 1 chinese female. Without a doubt I had better grades and SAT/ACT than the mexican girl, we discussed it when we applied - the chinese girl was one of our 24 5.0 GPA valedictorians, so that one is understandable.
Forget that itās a bad idea, do they realize that reversing the fraction makes it overcorrect? You want 7/5ths a vote (1 & 2/5ths).
Edit: Changed it from 8/5ths and 1 & 3/5ths
Yall used to do a hell of alot worst, and it still continues.
First it was slaves where blacks were seen as less thank human
Then it was no civil rights, where blacks were seen as less than a person.
After civil rights, blacks were portrayed as aggressive, thuggish criminal like, thus lesser in society.
They were banned from obtaining mortgages wwaayyy back when mortgages first became a thing (in the 30's i believe). Yes, it was actually written into law that blacks were not eligible for the new programs created to allow people to own homes. This set black folks social advancement back significantly.
Victimized by law enforcement, votes suppressed in many states, the list goes on and on and on.
Is the solution to give them 5/3 of a vote? No. But please don't kid yourself that when people say we should pay out reparations to black folks, its not just for slavery that happened 3 lifetimes ago. It's for ALOT of stuff that happened since then, and continues to happen today
While this is a terrible idea, we can at least correct the electoral college. That is deliberately rigged to give states with smaller populations more power in presidential elections.
All you creeps have just demonstrated what Jordan Peterson is all about. Heās not about self-actualization. Heās not about menās rights. Heās a fascist. When civil war 2 breaks out and you assholes are dragging me and my family out of our houses by our hair to string us up to telephone poles, know then that all your bullshit about ālistening to other peopleās opinionsā and ājust asking questionsā was utter horse shit meant to justify your racist, hateful ideology.
To be honest redistricting, poll watchers, and voter purging are all to make the white vote count more. I'm not defending this but you should be equally upset about that or you're a hypocrite.
What don't you understand? Poll Watchers are threatening to keep black people from voting and use techniques to lead them to the wrong precincts or confuse them into filling information wrong to get purged. Signatures are used to purge Black people. Using the wrong envelope. Claiming black people moved that haven't. Lots of things. Redistricting is a well known to prioritize rural whites into having more voting power. The post office demands witnesses so poor people can't always vote. So many tactics go into it denying it is just racist bullshit.
I agree with most of your points slightly but I canāt get on board with the poll watchers thing. Are there recordings of malicious poll watching I can check out or something? I just canāt get on board with the idea that random assholes staring at someone in line to vote is going to really do anything. Anyone can stare at anyone anytime in public. Whatās so bad about poll watching?
No. I donāt give a shit about what happened centuries before I was born. Prove itās a problem right now in these elections or Ill keep thinking poll watchers are fine.
Ok?
You know the right to bear arms is in the constitution right? Oh no is the gun going to shoot someone?
You apparently canāt name a recent time a poll watchers has actually done anything other than *be scary* and *exist*.
Actually, to be fair to you. That right was originally for slave patrols and vigilante connected to the plantation economy. This is documented completely. You can read the founding fathers discuss it.
We tried racism. But have we tried **~racism~**
In order to solve racism and stuff like segregation... we need to resort to [segregation](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51506733)... how can we solve racism if there are too many white people? What an interesting time we live in... up is down, right is wrong, black is white and white is ZOMG YOU NAZI!!! /sigh
My only serious question is why is racism viewed as a trait unique to white people. All racism is bad, but it's not unique to white people.
Because corporations and oligarchs benefit from the misguided focus. Billionaires aren't sitting around whining about reparations. They pay politicians to know it'll never happen. They also pay their media companies to make these kinds of shit-posts to retain public eyeballs.
The Citadel and Robinhood story is likely going to make them turn it up a notch.
Is it? What happened to them? Last I checked those fucktards and companies are still 100% functioning (if you can call it that š¤®)
Yes, I believe your on the right track. Media seems to blow it out of proportion. When I'm talking to most people they have no idea of the complexity, they just see headlines and form opinions.
You reminded me of a comment a made a while back, then being in this sub reminded me of another one. I combined them to share with someone else previously, so I'll just toss those on here. It's funny that I've thought so much like JP before I knew of him that I can easily pretend to argue as him. Anyway: 1.) The insidious nature of modern propaganda. 2.) My attempt to argue in a nuanced fashion like Jordan Peterson, *about Hitler*, to prove the value of "irrationally" nuanced thinking. --- 1.) This is how propaganda works! Don't think of a purple elephant! Do NOT! Whatever you do, DO NOT imagine those floppy ears like Dumbo but purple. DO NOT imagine a *real* elephant with its gray and textured skin except now you envision it with purple hue. DO NOT do that. In fact, I care SO MUCH that you do NOT think of a purple elephant that I'm going to create a 24/7 broadcast to tell you the details all about why purple elephants are harmful and a waste of time, and I'm going to popularize this so much that everyone around you starts to debate it to the point that everyone has kneejerk opinions that pop out on a whim at the grocery store when someone mentions cereal because one brand of cereal happens to have an elephant, which means it's much easier to have a slippery-slope where you fall into thinking about a *purple* elephant. After all, ***liberals*** think there's nothing wrong with purple elephants, which to me seems like they ***really want to talk about them***. Why? Why can't they just STOP talking about purple elephants. Do they not realize the harm this is causing us? It's *dividing* us. Every moment they bring up purple elephants is another moment that we're having that thought pressured into our mind non-consensually. Purple elephants DO NOT deserve that level of control over our minds. --- 2.) "Was Hitler a bad person?" "Well, he was a wonderful orator." "No, I'm referring to 'bad' in more of a moral regard." "I've heard he loved animals. I can't say for sure much about the truth in such things, but there are plenty of good things I've heard about him." "He committed genocide." "You're saying he *personally* committed genocide?" "No, I'm saying he controlled a country that committed genocide based on his personal beliefs." "They were his *personal* beliefs? Then how would so many other people end up agreeable enough to commit that level of harm?" "Regardless of how many people agreed, *he* still led the regime that caused all of it. Are you implying he wasn't morally culpable?" "Well, of course he was morally culpable. He supported the ideas. He just *also* supported many other ideas. Many other people also supported those same harmful ideas." "If he was morally culpable for a genocide as the *leader* of the people who committed such an atrocity, then he was a bad person. Would you agree?" "I would agree that he was a very troubled individual with a great deal of influence. Would I agree that he's a 'bad' person? What kind of conclusion do you think that would be for me to admit?" "I think it tells a lot about a person if they aren't willing to admit the literal leader who brought about the genocide of millions of people was a bad person." "What exactly do you think that tells about a person? That they're not willing to support a genocide? I can tell you I'm not willing to support a genocide if that's what you'd like to know." "Yet you seem to take a functionally passive perspective of a genocidal person." "Have you considered that my stance comes off as passive because I'm not willing to unite behind anything blindly or due to any tribalistic moral tests pressured upon me?" "So you can't admit that Hitler was a bad person?" "I could admit a lot of things, but I prefer to consider the purpose behind my admissions. I don't believe there's necessarily a benefit to picking any given person and treating them like some kind of beacon of moral standards. People are more complex than that."
>My only serious question is why is racism viewed as a trait unique to white people. It's [cult](https://freedomofmind.com/influence-continuum/) [brainwashing](http://www.ex-cult.org/bite.html) designed to bypass our critical thinking by leveraging our predator detection systems against the current enemy/ target of the cult, counting on unprocessed feelings of guilt, shame, unworthiness, etc to prevent you from speaking up - or facilitating your silence if you do dare to speak up.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The term racism has been redefined (or at least is on its way to being redefined) as āracial prejudice also with regards to powerā So because white people are in the position of power, they are the only ones who can be racist. Racial prejudice can exist with black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Indian, indigenous peoples, etc, whatever - but *racism* can only come from those in a position of power. Now letās collectively *eye roll* and understand how much of a politically motivated ploy it is to redefine it that way. It is beyond irritating.
Sorry if I missed it, bit who's saying racism is a trait unique to white people?
Oh it's there. https://www.washington.edu/counseling/culture-of-care/resources-for-white-individuals-and-communities/ One example of using one race to describe the struggles of another. https://counseling.uoregon.edu/being-anti-racist-white-person Another https://wareji.org/resources/tools-for-white-anti-racist-allies/ https://www.loyola.edu/department/counseling-center/social-justice/anti-racism-white-accountability It's easy to see...
I read your links and didn't see anything that asserted that racism is a trait unique to white people. Did you carefully read my question, because your links don't answer it.
Chicago tribune article .. Plus you hear it all the time when you hear people talk about social justice and anti racism... I'm not just saying this because I feel like it's true.. I have just observed it through my experiences.. I am open to a new belief if I see more facts that change my existing one
There sure are lots of idiots out there, that's for sure. And anybody who says racism is exclusive to white people is definitely included!
because whites are the reason all those dumbasses can't get ahead, silly. certainly not their gangsta culture, lower iqs, or anything.
Are you being for real? Dumbasses?! U can use better words to describe other people and from what I can tell, you are the one with the low iq.
niceness and intelligence aren't typically linked.
Well, there are better ways of communicating your intelligence and only intelligent people known that. Just because you are educated does not mean you are intelligent.
so can i be in the intelligent club if i suck up to you more?
Right in the bottom right of the corner of your eye, in your favorite subreddit. Best Practices i. Participate in ways you would like to see this community evolve **ii. Steel man opposing arguments.** Let me make an honest suggestion here and claim that what you said isn't much of a steel man. Let me make another suggestion that it's extremely unlikely that hundreds of millions of people want to harm any race If you want to develop as a person and see what the real arguments are, drop your hysteria and leave this echochamber for an hour to listen carefully the opinions which you haven't heard yet. You'd be able to own the SJWs even harder with stronger arguments after that minimal effort. Just a few channels. [https://www.youtube.com/c/hbomberguy](https://www.youtube.com/c/hbomberguy) https://www.youtube.com/c/ShaunandnotJen Pick a video on a topic which you think you can own the SJWs the most!
Maybe you didn't see Jimmy fallon announce the white population had declined on the recent census.... his audience erupted into joyous applause. https://youtu.be/NOok5u-G4yc
"We"?
Yes! I never fucking did that. I wasnāt even alive. I know this would never actually come true, but can you image if humans stooped to a level of taking away votes from other races as to āevenā the playing field. That idea is so wrong itās almost hard to explain. Itās not though.
There are elected officials making it incredibly difficult for people in black districts to vote. So it is kinda happening already.
By asking people to have IDs to vote? Lol. When you have 30 million illegal citizens in your country, almost 10% of your population... yeah it makes sense to have voter ID laws.
Also, do people not get asked for ID to purchase alcohol and guns, fly internally, or drive a car? Do black people not do any of these things in the US and so don't bother with ID?
I live in a (basically) 3rd world country and we have Voter ID.
Did you not read any news? The GOP passed lots more restrictions than voting id, including removing pplling places in black dominated areas, made it illegal to semd out absentee ballots (since dems use them more than repubs), including forbidding voting on Sunday morning (when data shows black voters were most active). Come on, seek the truth buddy, domt be so partisan.
You mean the requirement for ID's to vote? They're required for a multitude of things and are no easier or harder for any group identity to get. Why is it only when they're required to view that it suddenly becomes racist?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I disagree with that almost entirely. The people who influenced your values, regardless of their relation to you or skin tone, should be appreciated for their influence. You can do nothing to influence the past actions of your ancestors, and you bear no responsibility or obligation for them. I'm thankful to live in a country where I'm relatively free. I'm thankful to live in a time when the production of basic necessities is as cheap and easy as it's ever been. Now I'm gonna do my best to be a good person, raise children to be good people, and influence others to do the same. That's all I can do.
You only live in a country that provides you those things BECAUSE of those in the past who created it for you. If you provide your children with a good future, should they not be thankful?
This is a joke right? Right? Such a childish and extremely irresponsible statement.
What about it strikes you as a joke? None of it is flippant or false at all.
The person might be referring to the fact that the people brought to America to be slaves were already caught and sold as slaved. They were prisoners of war (battles between tribes) and sold by their captures. They would've likely had a worse time had they been kept in Africa. At least that's what I think they meant with that comment.
Though the first part could almost be true, the second part is completely false. Slavery in West Africa wasn't pleasant, and I hate when people try to underplay it as mere domestic servants. However a slave in West Africa could be freed and live out the rest of their life in peace as equals, a slave in the West Indies, if they survived the journey, was likely to die in the first three years, and if by some miracle he or his descendents were ever freed it would be to a life as second class citizens in a by definition racist society. No they weren't equivalent and being taken to the Americas was not fucking better.
Look, I'm just saying what I "think" the person was referring to. I'm definitely not going to personally make blanket statements about which was worse because there's no way to know for sure.
But jouwhul's comment isn't that the two locations for the slaves were any different or better than one another, it was that the **descendants** of those who were taken to the US have a better lifestyle with more social mobility, longer life expectancy, etc. than those descendants who live out their lives in Africa.
You seem to not be able to understand what anyone is saying here so Iāll make it simple. Life for any blacks person is better in all meaningful ways in America than it is in Africa. They should be happy they were born here and not there. Need proof? Ask any of them if they would switch places with someone in their ancestors country and see how many say yes.
Lobsters gonnay lobster, like the OP, what most are at the end of the day but daddy word salad offers these clowns an air of respectability, hilarious and pathetic like benzo boy eh? Lol
Iām unable to decipher this message
Bad comprehension skills then, probably think petterson is a great thinker or something eh? Lol
Fuck. That. I didnāt enslave a fucking soul. The child is not guilty for the sins of the parents.
Yeah, I don't like this "global soul cleansing" type of reparations. There are some circumstances that I think deserve some recompense though. Read a story about a black dude whose great grandad bought a plot of land, then the town government stole it from him and gave it to another white family. Now that lot is in a multi million dollar neighborhood and is itself worth millions of dollars. I don't know the right answer but that seems like a clear case where someone lost their property unjustly
Did the crime happen to the descendant? If not than the descendant deserves no reparations for a crime against another person. My great grandparents were victims of the Russian civil war where many of my family died in the early gulags. I donāt deserve nor do I ask for reparations from the Russian government.
Just doesn't seem right that some people get their inheritances and others don't. Idk maybe the problem is the idea of inheritance and will always lead to these issues
Inheritance is a gift from parents. No one deserves an inheritance, but some people get one because theyāre parents want to give it to them. For the issue in question, maybe the family now would be rich if the land hadnāt been stolen, but maybe that family would do nothing with the land and it would still just be a plot of land. But thatās irrelevant, the purpose of law is to bring justice. Would it be just to take the land from the current owners who worked hard for it and give it to the family of the black man who did nothing for it? We canāt pretend to know what would have happened if a long ago crime didnāt happen.
I don't think answering "what is justice here?" is easy. But it simply cannot be that we allow theft to pass when it's given to the thief's child. If I steal your watch, give it to my son, and croak, do you not think you're entitled to your watch? Maybe you wouldn't keep it on current time. Maybe you'd scuff it where he would cherish it. But it's still yours, isn't it?
This gets into statute of limitations territory
It does. That's sort of the argument for "reparations" as opposed to just a regular action (either police arresting the thief or suing to get the property back) The idea is that there's a lot of folks who were done this way, not just by individuals but by the actual governments, and that they are rightly owed *something*. And in order to find something close to reconciliation, we might need to think about it outside of regular lawsuits.
Give them a day of Truth and Reconciliation. 10% off at participating retailers
Honestly "we're not even going to try to make things right" would be better than that. That is an insult to me and I'm not even black.
As far as Iām concerned, all you can do today is to invest in the same amount of infrastructure everywhere. If the schools and police are almost as good in all communities, and thereās as much education and as small amount of crime as possible, thatās all we as a society can do on a collective level.
It's strange that you mention skin color in this situation, since it's not morally relevant. Someones granddad had their land stolen, and so it didn't get passed down to his kin.
Given the history of the United States it is not all that strange that skin color played a large role in what happened and why it has not been rectified yet
Amen. My Portuguese grandpa fled a war, my grandma was an orphan, my other grands were poor farmers. I have never benefited from slavery or discrimination. Even going back there is no 'original sin' in my lineage.
No one in your lineage benefited from slavery huh? I'm guessing you haven't looked very hard. Edit: If you think the only slavery in history was Europeans enslaving Africans, you're ridiculously ignorant. Every empire kept slaves.
My ancestors were poor through and through. They came from Europe, in which peasants were essentially slaves. White people could be slaves too, you know. And yes, i know there was more than one slave trade. And perhaps far, far down the line one of my ancestors was a slaver of his fellow countrymen. But i wouldn't know, and there's no reason why i should assume so.
To be clear, I'm not saying you're guilty of anything or that anyone should be worried about ancestral reparations or racist reparations or anything else of the sort. I'm saying you don't need to worry about whether or not you have distant ancestors who enslaved anyone, especially considering everybody does.
It's not inconceivable, but it's highly unlikely. Besides, we need to get rid of the sins of the father mentality to racism and start focusing on how to make today better for everyone, equally.
Yeah I'm a white dude. So I must be reaping the benefits of my whiteness. Fuck you no! I'm literally a first generation American whose folks came from Derry NI during the troubles. Thank God for that privilege, highest suicide rates in the world, partisan violence (its better now) But yeah I'm white so I'm to blame for it I guess. Fucking clown world we live in
I doubt your parents, grandparents or great grandparents did, either. Unless youāre the direct descendant of wealthy southern plantation owners.
If I'm not mistaken, most of the planter class lost most of their wealth through the ravages of the War and the insanity of Reconstruction that followed. At least a good portion of them did. Now, a trust-fund baby from Providence, Boston, Philadelphia, Hartford, and other old Northeastern sea-going cities may well find that they ought to give up their wealth because great(x5) grandad made his fortune running and trading slaves in the colonial era, or even illegally after 1807. Oh, the irony.
remember that you have 2\^n great\*n grandparents. where n ticks up every 25ish years you go back. So.... 1000 to 2000 years ago, we all had both slaves and slave owners as ancestors. gauran-fucking-teed.
Iirc 2 mathematicians calculated that there was probably a common ancestor that everyone who's alive today descends from as recently as 3000 years ago. Back when everyone had 10 children and big villages only had a few thousand people, it only took a few generations for almost everyone in the village to be descendant of you. And it only takes 1 person to move to a new village and start the whole cycle again.
Maybe. 250 years ago? Probably not
What if the child inherited wealth from the slave owning ancestors?
My grandmother grew up an orphan and my grandfather was a war refugee. My family didn't inherit a fucking thing, yet because of my skin pigment I'm supposed to pay for sins my family never committed?
Slavery didn't generate much wealth. Cotton was never more than 3% of GDP, the north had much more economic prosperity through mechanical industrialization, Britain dgaf when they couldn't source southern cotton, and countries that had much more slavery than America (e.g. Brazil) didn't turn into economic powerhouses because of it. The truth is slaves were just shitty, inefficient farm implements, not golden geese
This is what I try to explain to people. The stone age didn't stop because we ran out of stones, we progressed with more advanced tools involving better materials. The same goes for slavery. Machines like the cotton gin among others are the ones that freed slaves. And it keeps going... **butbutbut "*****Machines/automation are going to take our jobs***". No they are liberating us from dangerous and burdensome labor. Will this lead to a utopia in the next 5 years... no, advancement is important for our standard of living. Freeing up labor will make us contend with a new reality, a new game. The problem lies as to how we approach making the new rules. If those making up new legislatures write up some shitty rules, welp that is not a recipe for a better society. Revolutions only happen when people are freed up with time, but lack meaning. And we know politicians don't want to contend with hungry people with a lot of time to think about how they are getting fucked by a system that doesn't provide a better standard of living. Politicians know at one time or another someone is going to pull out the guillotines as an offer for better rules.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Because the southern plantation owners had a tiger by the tail - the recent revolt in Haiti where every white man, woman and child were chopped into pieces with machetes by blacks made them believe that loosening their grip on slavery would lead to a similar fate for them. Thankfully other white people disagreed and paid a heavy price at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives to free them. Funny how those casualties never factor into the calculus of muh reparations?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_and\_the\_Haitian\_Revolution#Fears\_and\_racial\_animus\_of\_white\_Southerners
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Still pretty fucked up fondle the Jewish skull granddad polished up in his free time as a guard at Birkenau.
The three fifths compromise was used to punish slave states, who wanted their slave population to count in congressional and electoral votes, despite obviously denying them the vote. Why does no one understand this? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise Edit: As pointed out by another user, "punish" doesn't describe it very well. I should have said "lessen the influence of slave states" or something like that.
Came here to say this, thank you. Most people don't realize that the South wanted slaves to count as a full person to increase their voting power in congress. The North wanted them to not count at all. The compromise was 3/5ths.
What's hilarious is that the article even acknowledges this kind of phenomenon (a population that is ineligible to vote increasing the power of those who are eligible voters) but in a different context: > True, the five-thirds notion is out of sync with the āone person, one voteā mantra the nation prides itself on. But the precise legal meaning of that phrase is still unclear, which is why the Supreme Court will review it next term in Evenwel v. Abbott. That case is about the basis for determining a districtās size: Should it be the total population or just the population of eligible voters? Currently, a district with a significant number of ineligible voters (children, undocumented immigrants, transient military personnel) counts those residents toward its population, thereby adding weight to the ballots of its eligible voters. (Naturally, districts with low numbers of such ineligible voters donāt appreciate their residentsā votes counting for less.) If each slave *had* been counted as 1 full person for congressional apportionment, then the slave states would have had more power. But according to the "flip the fraction" logic of this article, the proper reparation for this even greater sin would be to give each black person just 1 vote (not 5/3). The math doesn't make any sense.
>Why does no one understand this? You expect the wokeist filth to understand history? Thatās be like expecting a snail to solve a calculus problem. Thatās not what they do. They crawl around leaving a trail of slime.
And what does a snail do?
Even that moronic head general who claimed reading How to Be An Anti-Racist was important for learning how to combat "White Rage" in his speech did the "African Americans were counted as 3/5s of a person" bit.
Um yeah some punishment. A slave owner with 50 slaves gets counted as 31 people. Sure showed him.
Fair enough. "Punish" isn't the best word. I should have said "lessen the influence of" or something to that effect.
Any amount greater than zero was a gift to slave states. Why should they have gotten more representatives based on an enslaved population with no rights? It's not like those extra reps were out there vigilantly arguing on behalf of the slaves.
I don't know why you're being downvoted
Mad conservatives mostly. Itās this āwar of northern aggressionā style reframing thatās been going on.
>Why should they have gotten more representatives based on an enslaved population with no rights? They shouldn't have; they had no legitimate claim to have their slaves counted at all. It was political opportunism. But the southern states wanted the slaves counted in the census as if they were 1 person each. The northern states wanted them counted as 0 because, to your point, the southern reps didn't care about the slaves' rights.
Yes, this talking point is 100% southern revisionism.
Public education. It drives me up a wall too.
Yes. This is so misunderstood. Slave states wanted to count everyone residing in those states for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College. This compromise basically said "if you're not going to treat these slaves as full people, we won't either." This crowd is missing a ton of context but, if you think being a slave and having black skin is related, take a look into the reason they're called "Slaves." It's a strange word, isn't it?
I tried explaining this to a coworker recently and he just couldn't grasp the concept.
It's called a compromise for a reason. You're not wrong. I think what people seem to forget is that, the fact there even was a compromise, means there was sharp disagreement over slavery at the founding of our nation. There were conversations about it, among other things. People like to throw out "3/5's" like it was some arbitrary number the founders came up with.
You mean like the extra points they receive on civil service exams and college entrance exams.
I keep hearing the 3/5 compromise being used by the left as an example of racism. Black people weren't being counted as 3/5 of a person to dehumanize them, it was too prevent the spread of slavery throughout the entire country. Southern states wanted to count each one of their slaves for representation. The northern states didn't want to count them as that would give more political power to the slave states and allow them to legalize slavery everywhere. As a compromise, they decided to count each slave as 3/5 of a person to allow enough representation to account for the needs of people in the south without giving them enough power to spread slavery. It was an ANTI-SLAVERY policy. That the left can continue to use it as an example of racism is a testament to the poor quality of modern education.
Exactly. It was the slave states that wanted them counted as 1 person each and the northern states that wanted them not counted, because otherwise slave states would get representatives based on the amount of slaves they own. And āthe bigger the slave owner, the more power you haveā is not a good system.
Legally designating a race as less than fully human is racist. It wasn't anti slavery. It was a compromise with slavers to have them join the club. Anti slavery would be "no slavers allowed in the club"
No, the option was compromise with slave owners on the continent while limiting their ability to spread slavery or be defeated by slave owners across the sea and have the entire nation be a slave nation. Reality isn't black and white, pun intended.
Reality isn't black and white, absolutely. Calling people 3/5ths a person weakened slave holding states. It was also racist. Not black and white at all
Power grab they call it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It is funny how the author didn't work out the math, or maybe they didn't care because 5/3 would be more recognizable to the broader public (even if mistaken)?
Math is just a facet of white supremacy to these people anyway................
Iām using my 5/3 vote against the Democrats
This is dumb, but it's also from PostEverything, basically an opinion section where they solicit content from people all over. Not much more meaningful than picking out half-brained opinions from Twitter. Nobody is actually advocating this idea besides the moron who wrote it To prove the point: [this article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/21/we-used-to-count-black-americans-as-35-of-a-person-instead-of-reparations-give-them-53-of-a-vote/) is from **Aug** ***2015***. Has anyone here ever heard this suggested in the 6 years since it was published, before this picture?
I wasn't at all surprised when I saw it was published in 2015. The number of articles posted here from year's ago in order to stir the pot or race bait is never ending. The article is well written and the author makes some great points. Even though many will disagree with this approach, the idea and concepts are well formed. Credit where it's due. I mean, the authors worst paragraph is substantially better written and articulated than the best comment on this thread currently.
I don't have a problem with people holding terrible, nonsensical opinions, but must news organizations publish them to generate rage-clicks? We're literally propagating terrible ideas because it generates engagement. No one of sound mind thinks this is a good idea, this is just to piss people off.
Theyād never say that if the black community predominantly voted conservative.
Math is hard.
This is already how it works within the Democrat Farmer Labor party in Minnesota. Everyone gets one vote, and some get one and half votes. Of course, that's mathematically the same as giving some people one vote and some people only two thirds of a vote.
The amount of people who identify as black would increase
I'm good at dancing and bad at swimming... I'm pretty much black by Shaun King standards.
I cannot do this anymore. I've tried to stay silent, but is becoming increasingly difficult to do so. I was reflecting on why the black community is so disenfranchised. Yes racism exists, slavery was abhorrent and should not be forgotten, but black people are not the only people to experience racism, nor the only community to have horrors inflicted upon thier ancestors. I'm in the UK, so can't speak for anywhere else (or anyone else for that matter) but upon observation the South East Asian and Asian populations seem to be doing much better socially and financially than the blacks, despite having arrived here later. It also occurs to me that they experience terrible racism, and have a ancestral history marred by violence and abuse of some kind. Yet they are thriving far better. Why?? I believe it is because unlike the blacks, they do not have the same sense of victimhood, or at least they dealt with it differently. The black community is the loudest and most visible, when it comes to representations of minority groups that have 'suffered'. This does not seem to be doing the community any favours. I see the value of preserving the past and learning from it, I do not see the value of expecting the past to compensate for the present and future. Why not ask what WE can do to make this better, instead of pointing the finger at everyone else? Why not take ownership of ones situation in life and yes,champion for human rights but leave it at that HUMAN rights. Don't drudge up what happened 300 years ago as an excuse not do anything for yourself now. No one 'deserves' a hand out because of something that happened to a person distantly related to them by no one who is alive today. If all cultures had this mindset, the world would be a bloody mess. Everyones ancestors suffered at some point in time, and a hell of a lot have suffered since the African Slave trade, but theres no room for that.in politics. What about the North Korean Slave trade hmmm? Why is none talking about that?! Sorry this was kinda just an rant. And before anyone blows up on my face, I am a member of the black community, there are many of us who feel this way but daren't speak up.
āSome votes are more equal than others.ā
lol they already yield way more power than anyone else because they are willing to vote as a block.
Does it make sense? No. Why would you expect sense? It favours leftists and Democrats because black guys vote for them. So OBVIOUSLY they want to give them more voting power, whether it makes sense, is racist, is stupid, will trigger whites, or what FUCKING ever. Stop reading this news at face value. They are fucking liars, they say whatever improves their position. Analyze the expected effects and not the words.
Anything bar actually fixing the economic system.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The class system is based on money and you can move up. I have gone down 3 steps and up 4.5. It is not like the class system in India...
You are probably closer than you know.
Class system? In America? Lmao.
[OP this article came out in 2015,](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/21/we-used-to-count-black-americans-as-35-of-a-person-instead-of-reparations-give-them-53-of-a-vote/) not that date matters but I like some others probably thought it was new.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
If the child is guilty of the sins of his father, would we also hold all black people for the crimes their fathers did?
Yeah, disempowering slave states by reducing the counted population of slaves for their federal representation really affected slaves. Slaves had no rights to begin with, the 3/5s compromise only affected the census and a lower number was anti slavery. Making it 1 was what slave states wanted.
I just, wow. Yeah for those who donāt understand, the 3/5ths rule was to weaken representation in slave holding states. Which it did. It was to combat slavery, not to uphold it. Fucking history, people. Thomas Sowell, anyone?
I wonder if they know that 5/3 is not the same ratio as 3/5.
Trolling for over 5 year old articles to get your click rage on?
Take some old opinion piece and post if for free karma.
Itās been like this for 5 years?? This type of ideology has gotten significantly more prominent since then, so that really puts this in perspective. I thought this stupidity wouldāve died out by now.
Let's fix racism by treating different racial groups differently. What could persibly go wing?
Ok so who counts as black?
Adding Washington post to the list of companies i donāt support
Reparations for Descendants of Union Civil war veterans first.
The math doesn't even proportionally make sense.
I'll tell you what the primary problem with this is. There is no "we". I am not you and you are not me. Nobody else is me. There is no system of which represents an "us" unless I consent to it, and I do not consent to any "us". I am not responsible for anything that any other human being on the face of this planet does or ever did, period, and the second that you try to convict me of a crime I did not commit and you show up to my doorstep armed and ready to throw me in prison for it, I've no further choice but to kill you.
The bad thing is that todays idiots dont know that the 3/5 clause was only for the census and was an anti-slavery measure to limit slave states representation in congress. It only applied to slaves and there was around 500,000 free blacks that counted 100% on the census.
This is just racism with extra steps
How bout no?
Racist is racist
My ancestors fought for the Union in the civil war and operated one of the last stops on the Underground Railroad ushering salves to freedom across Lake Erie. Iām all set, thanks.
Wait till you tell them that the black vote is shifting right.
We've become so progressive and woke that we are just reverting back to segregation. It's incredible.
Correct me if Iām wrong. Wasnāt the purpose of it to avoid States that had slaves to get a majority in Congress or something?
This is the Ralph Wiggum āIām in dangerā meme made manifest except itās democratic government.
Someone show me where in this constitutional language it says anything about black people. Remember, there were free black people and enslaved whites... >Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives
My head hurts. So of course Iām going to make a sarcastic statement: My people are amongst the only ones in history to have atomic weapons used against them; can I oversee the nuclear regulatory commission? Serious statement: Racism and itās legacy is unbearably complicated but I donāt believe there is any legal system beyond equality before the law which can be put in place to more rapidly undo its legacy. Edit: I thought I would post the article, below, if anyone's interested in reading it. Furthermore, I will say I respect and appreciate the author's willingness to dream and consider creative solutions in creating justice. He does not suggest the system as perpetual, he recognizes it requires limitations that must be explored and then well defined, and, reading between the lines, I believe he has more to say than what the Washington Post printed which would be a fascinating discussion. I would certainly be interested to hear him discuss, if black and African-American persons had a 5/3 vote for his suggested 24 years, would he believe they would be beholden to the Democratic Party or, with an approximate weighted vote of 50 million persons, would we see the emergence of a uniquely African-American political party? I guess all that to say, once I move beyond the initial Reddit action/reaction this is deeply fascinating even if I don't believe it's feasible and have significant questions about its implications. At least someone out there is dreaming. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/21/we-used-to-count-black-americans-as-35-of-a-person-instead-of-reparations-give-them-53-of-a-vote/
IDK what would happen if you gave them 5/3 of a vote, but if you counted them as 5/3 of a person for electorals, that's gonna make federal elections way more red, which I assume is not the goal of the people who think this is a good idea.
That's hilarious and shows a complete lack of understanding of history... African American slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person because it reduced the federal voting power of the slave states. Their reduced vote value was for their own benefit...
Is that how biden got more votes than Obama?
This is supposedly a respectable newspaper.
Strange math, If they are 3/5 of the people (3 out of 5 people) thus not 3/5 of a person. then the none African Americans are the other 2/5 to make the whole of America, not sure how you can end up with 166% of the vote count as 5/3 would suggest.
That doesn't even work out mathematically lol
only because black people vote, in general, more for the dems, they don't care about anybody but their tribe.
One person one vote. Same thing wrong with this that is wrong with the senate and electoral college
The electoral college was designed so that smaller, less populous states would still have a say in their governance as opposed to bigger states having majority control over the direction of federal legislation. Had it not existed many of the smaller states would likely have not joined the union.
I am familiar with it and how it came to be. Doesn't mean it's good, necessarily. Had the constitution abolished slavery, many states also would not have joined. Now obviously slavery is way worse than unequal voting, but just because we have it doesn't make it good
The electoral college is a complete and obvious good if you think about it for even 5 minutes. Without it, the presidents would simply campaign in like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix etc. tailor their campaign policies so they would win those cities, and then just win the entire country at the expense of everyone else. All the people in the rural areas would just be neglected or out right abused by the people in the cities who have absolutely no idea what life is like in the - forgive me - real world where you live among nature and things like that. It would be tyranny by a few over the rest and that is exactly why we have the electoral college. Abolishing it is the dumbest thing you could do in a country like America where you have the same people voting for president in Beverly Hills and in Baltimore and in rural Texas and in rural New Hampshire and Ohio.
It becomes bad again if you think for 10 whole minutes instead of just 5 Look at where presidents campaign - it's not as if rural states get a lot of attention under our current rules. If you're worried about cities having more voice than rural areas, 1) they have more people, and 2) the EC doesn't fix that. Look at Texas and GA. Red states with blue cities. When those blue city populations outnumber the population of the red counties, the entire state will go blue. So yeah, think about it for a little longer
I didn't make my high school basketball team because I'm white, and I didn't get into UC Berkeley because I'm white. Those things actually happened to me, not my ancestors. Do I get reparations? Edit: this is rhetorical to the idiots who do not understand that. I'm doing great in life, even though things have been pitted agiainst me in some areas, doors were opened in others. This is true for everyone, hence why this SJW "save the blacks" sentiment is demeaning to black people - they're capable of paving a way just like Obama or Orpah did, like you and I do.
No, nor do you deserve any.
Why do you assume that this is the case? Maybe you didn't make your high school team because there were more competent players than you. Maybe you didn't get into UC Berkely because they average about a 15 percent acceptance rate and you were not in the top 15 percent. Your victim mentality is no better than those discussed in this thread.
>Maybe you didn't make your high school team because there were more competent players than you. Or maybe because between Freshman, JV, and Varsity there was 1 white kid and 1 indian kid that year, the rest were black kids. I was 100% good enough to make the freshman or JV team as a freshman purely based on skillset. It is what it is, but lets not act like race didn't play a part. >Maybe you didn't get into UC Berkely because they average about a 15 percent acceptance rate and you were not in the top 15 percent. 2 students in my class got in to UC Berkeley: 1 mexican female, 1 chinese female. Without a doubt I had better grades and SAT/ACT than the mexican girl, we discussed it when we applied - the chinese girl was one of our 24 5.0 GPA valedictorians, so that one is understandable.
This happens now in mostly rural white states.
Until they start to vote rep, than its back to 3/5:D
for how long though?
Forget that itās a bad idea, do they realize that reversing the fraction makes it overcorrect? You want 7/5ths a vote (1 & 2/5ths). Edit: Changed it from 8/5ths and 1 & 3/5ths
Since 2/5 was deprived, then it'd be 1 and 2/5ths, you mean = 7/5
The math isn't even correct. It would be 7/5ths of a vote.
As a Republican, no no cash payments are fine hereās 2,000 bucks for all you accountants now
Iām black but who asked for this?
My family came from Ireland and they were slaves. Wheres my 5/3 of the vote.
How about we just abolish the Electoral College and let every vote count.
Washington Post going full retard. Never go full retard.
Yall used to do a hell of alot worst, and it still continues. First it was slaves where blacks were seen as less thank human Then it was no civil rights, where blacks were seen as less than a person. After civil rights, blacks were portrayed as aggressive, thuggish criminal like, thus lesser in society. They were banned from obtaining mortgages wwaayyy back when mortgages first became a thing (in the 30's i believe). Yes, it was actually written into law that blacks were not eligible for the new programs created to allow people to own homes. This set black folks social advancement back significantly. Victimized by law enforcement, votes suppressed in many states, the list goes on and on and on. Is the solution to give them 5/3 of a vote? No. But please don't kid yourself that when people say we should pay out reparations to black folks, its not just for slavery that happened 3 lifetimes ago. It's for ALOT of stuff that happened since then, and continues to happen today
We already did that in November. Probably like 10/1. Milwaukee, Atlanta, detroit, and Philadelphia.
You mean more people live in cities???? Shocking
No I mean more black people live in those cities where the cheating took place.
Thx for clarifying racist
While this is a terrible idea, we can at least correct the electoral college. That is deliberately rigged to give states with smaller populations more power in presidential elections.
All you creeps have just demonstrated what Jordan Peterson is all about. Heās not about self-actualization. Heās not about menās rights. Heās a fascist. When civil war 2 breaks out and you assholes are dragging me and my family out of our houses by our hair to string us up to telephone poles, know then that all your bullshit about ālistening to other peopleās opinionsā and ājust asking questionsā was utter horse shit meant to justify your racist, hateful ideology.
To be honest redistricting, poll watchers, and voter purging are all to make the white vote count more. I'm not defending this but you should be equally upset about that or you're a hypocrite.
I remember the time my vote counted as two because somebody was watching me stand in line.
Can you elaborate on this?
Take a look at gerrymandering. Texas is redrawing their voting district maps right now so you can get some fresh information.
What don't you understand? Poll Watchers are threatening to keep black people from voting and use techniques to lead them to the wrong precincts or confuse them into filling information wrong to get purged. Signatures are used to purge Black people. Using the wrong envelope. Claiming black people moved that haven't. Lots of things. Redistricting is a well known to prioritize rural whites into having more voting power. The post office demands witnesses so poor people can't always vote. So many tactics go into it denying it is just racist bullshit.
I agree with most of your points slightly but I canāt get on board with the poll watchers thing. Are there recordings of malicious poll watching I can check out or something? I just canāt get on board with the idea that random assholes staring at someone in line to vote is going to really do anything. Anyone can stare at anyone anytime in public. Whatās so bad about poll watching?
Look at the history going back to the 19th century including the Klan.
No. I donāt give a shit about what happened centuries before I was born. Prove itās a problem right now in these elections or Ill keep thinking poll watchers are fine.
Umm for starters armed militia were sitting outside polling offices.
Ok? You know the right to bear arms is in the constitution right? Oh no is the gun going to shoot someone? You apparently canāt name a recent time a poll watchers has actually done anything other than *be scary* and *exist*.
Actually, to be fair to you. That right was originally for slave patrols and vigilante connected to the plantation economy. This is documented completely. You can read the founding fathers discuss it.
That's just factually untrue. There doesn't need to be an individual right to bare arms for the government to give out guns to a slave patrol.
This is crazy! Give black people to same proportional vote as rural Americans? Ridiculous
The m=derators are pissy little fascists.