Sanders: 'We have got to apologize for slavery'

[Col. Roosevelt]

Reparations for slavery and global imperialism is due, I agree. And although you cannot blame the current government for past sins, the fact that black unemployment is double the national rate and that 1 in 4 black people are in poverty is directly linked to repercussions of the slave trade.

Just as Japanese Americans who were jailed during WWII and American Indians who have had their land and mineral rights robbed, descendants of black slaves should receive a substantial motion of apology. Personally I think a ton of this money should funnel into programs to relieve black suffering, like funding inner-city public schools, expanded job training programs, increased drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and other public services.

And just who should pay for this 'substantial motion of apology'? From whose tax dollars should this money come?

From the ultra-rich, of course. I'm sure they could spare a few billion for relief programs.
It'd be like a drop in the bucket compared to their usual paychecks.

Would the 'ultra rich' include black millionaires like Oprah ($2.7 billion in net worth), Tiger Woods ($600 million in net worth), Robert Johnson ($550 million in net worth), Michael Jordan ($525 million in net worth), and Magic Johnson ($500 million net worth)? How about people like Don Peebles, whose net worth is $350 million? Sheila Johnson at $400 million? Kenneth Chenault, head of American Express, whose net worth is $125 million?

Or only white 'ultra-rich' people?

[Torie]

True.

This could improve his standing among Blaxicans in the coming months.

Blaxicans? Seriously?

Guess people weren't exaggerating your racism.

I don't support the use of the term "Blaxican", but does anyone see an inconsistency of criticizing Branson for using it while "Blaxican's" use of it as a username has not, to my knowledge been challenged? Not that I am challenging it, just that I don't understand the philosophy here.

One poster has the copyright/tradename rights to it, the other poster is a mere infringer. Does that help? Oh, and neither use violates the terms of use, because while it may be offensive to some (including me a bit), it's not per se racist.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

OK, on behalf of the citizens of the United States, I would like to apologize that slavery ever existed in our nation."  There, it's done. Now what?

Reparations.

[Torie]

True.

This could improve his standing among Blaxicans in the coming months.

Blaxicans? Seriously?

Guess people weren't exaggerating your racism.

There's nothing racist whatsoever in my post. Stop misinterpreting what I say.

Oh admit it, you just wanted to use your favorite word to get another rise out of folks, irrespective of how apropos it might be. It makes no sense to use it, unless you really believe this apology would resonate with the "xican" part of your hybridization.

I am not to blame that some people get worked up with that term, which I only use as another word for "minority".

People should get a life and not get worked up about non-issues such as Blaxicans or Blaxicasians.

You seemed to change the topic here. It is sort of like Cruz being asked about his tax policy, and his answer is about the quality of the questions from the moderators.

[Tender Branson]

True.

This could improve his standing among Blaxicans in the coming months.

Blaxicans? Seriously?

Guess people weren't exaggerating your racism.

I don't support the use of the term "Blaxican", but does anyone see an inconsistency of criticizing Branson for using it while "Blaxican's" use of it as a username has not, to my knowledge been challenged? Not that I am challenging it, just that I don't understand the philosophy here.

One poster has the copyright/tradename rights to it, the other poster is a mere infringer. Does that help? Oh, and neither use violates the terms of use, because while it may be offensive to some (including me a bit), it's not per se racist.

It's not even racist "per se". It's not racist at all.

It would be racist if used in a negative way, but I "invented" it only as another word for "minorities" and Sanders appeal to them.

Heck, I didn't even "invent" it: Scrubs (or Turk) did.

[Torie]

OK, on behalf of the citizens of the United States, I would like to apologize that slavery ever existed in our nation."  There, it's done. Now what?

Reparations.

Bernie didn't mention money (at least not in the link).

[°Leprechaun]

Wow. I have always wondered how people can defend slave owners. Sadly, William Penn owned slaves as did a number of others, like Thomas Jefferson. I don't like it when I hear, "well they didn't know any better, it was ok in their time". There were opponents of slavery even in Penn's era. It is considered radical to be against slavery? Strange. Yet, the slightest politically incorrect words are considered racist? It makes no sense to me. It sounds like group think at it's worst.

William Penn was actually fairly liberal for his time since he accepted and encouraged the German immigration in the 1600s and 1700s. Yes, he did own slaves, and that's bad, but there were also Quakers in Pennsylvania who drafted resolutions in slavery.

That was my point. Quakers were against slavery. Penn was extremely radical in other ways, like being a pacifist and egalitarian vis a vis native Americans, but does that excuse his owning slaves? That was my point.

[Pyro]

Reparations for slavery and global imperialism is due, I agree. And although you cannot blame the current government for past sins, the fact that black unemployment is double the national rate and that 1 in 4 black people are in poverty is directly linked to repercussions of the slave trade.

Just as Japanese Americans who were jailed during WWII and American Indians who have had their land and mineral rights robbed, descendants of black slaves should receive a substantial motion of apology. Personally I think a ton of this money should funnel into programs to relieve black suffering, like funding inner-city public schools, expanded job training programs, increased drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and other public services.

And just who should pay for this 'substantial motion of apology'? From whose tax dollars should this money come?

From the ultra-rich, of course. I'm sure they could spare a few billion for relief programs.
It'd be like a drop in the bucket compared to their usual paychecks.

Would the 'ultra rich' include black millionaires like Oprah ($2.7 billion in net worth), Tiger Woods ($600 million in net worth), Robert Johnson ($550 million in net worth), Michael Jordan ($525 million in net worth), and Magic Johnson ($500 million net worth)? How about people like Don Peebles, whose net worth is $350 million? Sheila Johnson at $400 million? Kenneth Chenault, head of American Express, whose net worth is $125 million?

Or only white 'ultra-rich' people?

I don't think it would be right to segregate like that, so yes even mega-rich blacks should lend a helping hand. The idea is that the recipients should be working-class black people who are still suffering. I don't think Oprah Winfrey is suffering these days.

[Torie]

True.

This could improve his standing among Blaxicans in the coming months.

Blaxicans? Seriously?

Guess people weren't exaggerating your racism.

I don't support the use of the term "Blaxican", but does anyone see an inconsistency of criticizing Branson for using it while "Blaxican's" use of it as a username has not, to my knowledge been challenged? Not that I am challenging it, just that I don't understand the philosophy here.

One poster has the copyright/tradename rights to it, the other poster is a mere infringer. Does that help? Oh, and neither use violates the terms of use, because while it may be offensive to some (including me a bit), it's not per se racist.

It's not even racist "per se". It's not racist at all.

It would be racist if used in a negative way, but I "invented" it only as another word for "minorities" and Sanders appeal to them.

Heck, I didn't even "invent" it: Scrubs (or Turk) did.

OK, you're the publisher then. Suppose you loved using the term "Negroes," and a bunch of posters, particularly black ones, objected. Would you say, OK, if it offends you, I will stop using the term, or say, hey bud, it's not racist, and chill and get a life please? Just asking.

[Tender Branson]

Also:

Sanders is flush with cash and should air more ads in Blaxicasian-rich states such as SC and NV to improve his standing in the coming months, highlighting that Hilldog only talks about helping working-class Blaxicasians now, but then implements center-right policies that will hurt middle-class Blaxicasians after she's elected. Sanders has already fought with civil rights activists when Hilldog still sh*t into her diapers and his policies are much better than hers in helping out middle-class, working Blaxicasians. He simply needs to point that out more in the coming months.

[Col. Roosevelt]

Reparations for slavery and global imperialism is due, I agree. And although you cannot blame the current government for past sins, the fact that black unemployment is double the national rate and that 1 in 4 black people are in poverty is directly linked to repercussions of the slave trade.

Just as Japanese Americans who were jailed during WWII and American Indians who have had their land and mineral rights robbed, descendants of black slaves should receive a substantial motion of apology. Personally I think a ton of this money should funnel into programs to relieve black suffering, like funding inner-city public schools, expanded job training programs, increased drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and other public services.

And just who should pay for this 'substantial motion of apology'? From whose tax dollars should this money come?

From the ultra-rich, of course. I'm sure they could spare a few billion for relief programs.
It'd be like a drop in the bucket compared to their usual paychecks.

Would the 'ultra rich' include black millionaires like Oprah ($2.7 billion in net worth), Tiger Woods ($600 million in net worth), Robert Johnson ($550 million in net worth), Michael Jordan ($525 million in net worth), and Magic Johnson ($500 million net worth)? How about people like Don Peebles, whose net worth is $350 million? Sheila Johnson at $400 million? Kenneth Chenault, head of American Express, whose net worth is $125 million?

Or only white 'ultra-rich' people?

I don't think it would be right to segregate like that, so yes even mega-rich blacks should lend a helping hand. The idea is that the recipients should be working-class black people who are still suffering. I don't think Oprah Winfrey is suffering these days.

How about the money goes to "working class people" regardless of race, or are we going to still see things in terms of skin color?

What is black, anyway? Is a Dominican or Haitian person black, if they self-identify as Latino? They might look black, though. But are they? If they look black, but self identify as Latino, should they still get it?

What if you have a very dark skinned Italian who doesn't identify as white? What happens then?

[DemPGH]

"I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for all European aggression since the Viking age, or about the last one thousand years, give or take a few centuries."

Now, let's move on and deal with the issues at hand!

[Tender Branson]

True.

This could improve his standing among Blaxicans in the coming months.

Blaxicans? Seriously?

Guess people weren't exaggerating your racism.

I don't support the use of the term "Blaxican", but does anyone see an inconsistency of criticizing Branson for using it while "Blaxican's" use of it as a username has not, to my knowledge been challenged? Not that I am challenging it, just that I don't understand the philosophy here.

One poster has the copyright/tradename rights to it, the other poster is a mere infringer. Does that help? Oh, and neither use violates the terms of use, because while it may be offensive to some (including me a bit), it's not per se racist.

It's not even racist "per se". It's not racist at all.

It would be racist if used in a negative way, but I "invented" it only as another word for "minorities" and Sanders appeal to them.

Heck, I didn't even "invent" it: Scrubs (or Turk) did.

OK, you're the publisher then. Suppose you loved using the term "Negroes," and a bunch of posters, particularly black ones, objected. Would you say, OK, if it offends you, I will stop using the term, or say, hey bud, it's not racist, and chill and get a life please? Just asking.

I never use the word Negro, it has a negative undertone - unlike Blaxicasian (which is just an art-word for minority).

[°Leprechaun]

True.

This could improve his standing among Blaxicans in the coming months.

Blaxicans? Seriously?

Guess people weren't exaggerating your racism.

I don't support the use of the term "Blaxican", but does anyone see an inconsistency of criticizing Branson for using it while "Blaxican's" use of it as a username has not, to my knowledge been challenged? Not that I am challenging it, just that I don't understand the philosophy here.

One poster has the copyright/tradename rights to it, the other poster is a mere infringer. Does that help? Oh, and neither use violates the terms of use, because while it may be offensive to some (including me a bit), it's not per se racist.

Thanks for the response, but I still don't understand that if the term is so offensive a poster would want to change his user name to "Blaxican". I can understand, that if it is offensive to some that they would object, but I don't necessarily believe that is meant to be offensive, although the term "minority" is not offensive, and would be a better way to describe these two groups. However, technically "minority" refers to more than just two groups. The term "queer" is also still offensive and yet some people use the word to describe themselves. I am not in any way trying to defend the use of the term "Blaxican". I am merely trying to understand the philosophy behind the controversy.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Yes, an apology is due from the government of the country. Would be a little weird coming from Obama, but there's no doubt the government is responsible for grave atrocities with regard to slavery, and today's representatives should apologize on behalf of the government as an institution. I'm surprised it hasn't already been done.

[Torie]

True.

This could improve his standing among Blaxicans in the coming months.

Blaxicans? Seriously?

Guess people weren't exaggerating your racism.

I don't support the use of the term "Blaxican", but does anyone see an inconsistency of criticizing Branson for using it while "Blaxican's" use of it as a username has not, to my knowledge been challenged? Not that I am challenging it, just that I don't understand the philosophy here.

One poster has the copyright/tradename rights to it, the other poster is a mere infringer. Does that help? Oh, and neither use violates the terms of use, because while it may be offensive to some (including me a bit), it's not per se racist.

Thanks for the response, but I still don't understand that if the term is so offensive a poster would want to change his user name to "Blaxican". I can understand, that if it is offensive to some that they would object, but I don't necessarily believe that is meant to be offensive, although the term "minority" is not offensive, and would be a better way to describe these two groups. However, technically "minority" refers to more than just two groups. The term "queer" is also still offensive and yet some people use the word to describe themselves. I am not in any way trying to defend the use of the term "Blaxican". I am merely trying to understand the philosophy behind the controversy.

The Reader's Digest version is the the second poster is mocking the first poster for his chutzpah or whatever. It's about intent.

[Bigby]

Sure, and while we're at it, let's dig up the corpse of the first humans and make them apologize for original sin!

[°Leprechaun]

True.

This could improve his standing among Blaxicans in the coming months.

Blaxicans? Seriously?

Guess people weren't exaggerating your racism.

I don't support the use of the term "Blaxican", but does anyone see an inconsistency of criticizing Branson for using it while "Blaxican's" use of it as a username has not, to my knowledge been challenged? Not that I am challenging it, just that I don't understand the philosophy here.

One poster has the copyright/tradename rights to it, the other poster is a mere infringer. Does that help? Oh, and neither use violates the terms of use, because while it may be offensive to some (including me a bit), it's not per se racist.

Thanks for the response, but I still don't understand that if the term is so offensive a poster would want to change his user name to "Blaxican". I can understand, that if it is offensive to some that they would object, but I don't necessarily believe that is meant to be offensive, although the term "minority" is not offensive, and would be a better way to describe these two groups. However, technically "minority" refers to more than just two groups. The term "queer" is also still offensive and yet some people use the word to describe themselves. I am not in any way trying to defend the use of the term "Blaxican". I am merely trying to understand the philosophy behind the controversy.

The Reader's Digest version is the the second poster is mocking the first poster for his chutzpah or whatever. It's about intent.

Yes, makes sense. Thanks.

[I support Sanders]

lol, this is bottom-of-the-barrel pandering.
Hope the Sanders nuts are proud of him.

I'm not proud of such statements. This is pandering, just like when Bernie refused to say that "all lives matter" in the debate.

[Torie]

True.

This could improve his standing among Blaxicans in the coming months.

Blaxicans? Seriously?

Guess people weren't exaggerating your racism.

I don't support the use of the term "Blaxican", but does anyone see an inconsistency of criticizing Branson for using it while "Blaxican's" use of it as a username has not, to my knowledge been challenged? Not that I am challenging it, just that I don't understand the philosophy here.

One poster has the copyright/tradename rights to it, the other poster is a mere infringer. Does that help? Oh, and neither use violates the terms of use, because while it may be offensive to some (including me a bit), it's not per se racist.

It's not even racist "per se". It's not racist at all.

It would be racist if used in a negative way, but I "invented" it only as another word for "minorities" and Sanders appeal to them.

Heck, I didn't even "invent" it: Scrubs (or Turk) did.

OK, you're the publisher then. Suppose you loved using the term "Negroes," and a bunch of posters, particularly black ones, objected. Would you say, OK, if it offends you, I will stop using the term, or say, hey bud, it's not racist, and chill and get a life please? Just asking.

I never use the word Negro, it has a negative undertone - unlike Blaxicasian (which is just an art-word for minority).

Oh I understand. You think the word is clever, and think it silly others don't like it. I get it. You just don't play very well with others in the sand box, and if a little sand gets kicked into some other kids' eyes, no big deal. Well, we all have our own ideas about what having fun at recess is all about.

[Pyro]

I don't think it would be right to segregate like that, so yes even mega-rich blacks should lend a helping hand. The idea is that the recipients should be working-class black people who are still suffering. I don't think Oprah Winfrey is suffering these days.

How about the money goes to "working class people" regardless of race, or are we going to still see things in terms of skin color?

What is black, anyway? Is a Dominican or Haitian person black, if they self-identify as Latino? They might look black, though. But are they? If they look black, but self identify as Latino, should they still get it?

What if you have a very dark skinned Italian who doesn't identify as white? What happens then?

You're right, it should and it must. There are certain issues that pertain specifically to black people, though, and I think those need to be addressed as well. Things like black unemployment and the awful shape of inner-city schools are fixable if there were ladders to help these people out. I think that we have a duty to look after our fellow man, and make sure people are treated justly. The divisions and segregation that still exists today is unacceptable in my opinion, and we need to figure out a method to make things right.

As for your other point, I'm not positive that individual payments are the right way to move forward, because as you say, how are we supposed to determine something as gray as "blackness". I'm talking about helping on a community level to work towards solutions.

[°Leprechaun]

Since this thread is about apologizing, I apologize for the fact that the thread has gotten off topic; although it wasn't my intention and it may be too late for fixing the problem.

[YaBoyNY]

lol nobody on this forum "invented" blaxican

i've heard that one years before i knew about this place

[°Leprechaun]

Wow. I have always wondered how people can defend slave owners. Sadly, William Penn owned slaves as did a number of others, like Thomas Jefferson. I don't like it when I hear, "well they didn't know any better, it was ok in their time". There were opponents of slavery even in Penn's era. It is considered radical to be against slavery? Strange. Yet, the slightest politically incorrect words are considered racist? It makes no sense to me. It sounds like group think at it's worst.

William Penn was actually fairly liberal for his time since he accepted and encouraged the German immigration in the 1600s and 1700s. Yes, he did own slaves, and that's bad, but there were also Quakers in Pennsylvania who drafted resolutions in slavery.

That was my point. Quakers were against slavery. Penn was extremely radical in other ways, like being a pacifist and egalitarian vis a vis native Americans, but does that excuse his owning slaves? That was my point.

Oh, no, of course it doesn't. I see your point, of course.  

Sorry, I wasn't so much disagreeing with you as trying to clarify my point. There doesn't seem to be any disagreement here. edit: actually I was only making the point that I was aware of how progressive Penn was in other areas than slavery.

[SillyAmerican]

"I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for all European aggression since the Viking age, or about the last one thousand years, give or take a few centuries."

Now, let's move on and deal with the issues at hand!

Thank-you. Nicely said.