|
|
Post by gameboy on Apr 5, 2020 2:50:06 GMT
Legal documents in writing which have the force of law and the state behind them are very different than one person's personal bias. The problem with the U.S. Constitution is that it guarantees its citizens certain inalienable rights in one place, and then takes those rights away arbitrarily from others based on race. The U.S. Government is 250 years old. It still exists and it must be held accountable. Governments need to be held accountable for many things, but what is relevant today\now, not what has already passed. No, it's relevant today when African-American families only have half the net worth of white Americans. It's an institutionalized problem which must be addresses by reparations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Apr 5, 2020 2:57:30 GMT
Governments need to be held accountable for many things, but what is relevant today\now, not what has already passed. No, it's relevant today when African-American families only have half the net worth of white Americans. It's an institutionalized problem which must be addresses by reparations. Net worth of what Gamey? There are many many more poor white people in the US than blacks. It is not a race thing, it is an establishment status quo issue, which includes all ethnicities\races.
I will add also, that the same point you bring up, could also apply to homosexuality. I don't know about the US, but federal laws in other western countries made it illegal to engage in homosexuality activity. The same could be said about giving reparations to gay people for being told they were wrong and treated like second class citizens in the eyes of the law. I'd say the US would have had state laws regarding homosexuality. Also for subjugating women for not giving them the vote. Time to move on Gamey.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 5, 2020 3:40:58 GMT
"The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Whether and, if so, how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as people for this purpose. Its effect was to give the Southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally. The compromise was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney on June 11, 1787." Counting three out of five slaves for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population does not translate to individuals being "3/5 of a human being." Regardless, it devalued African-Americans as being worth only 60% of a white person. In a true republic, they would have been counted as one person and given the vote. Counting three out of five slaves for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population does not translate to individuals being "60% of a white person."
|
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Apr 5, 2020 9:50:01 GMT
Indeed. So, this Gandhi thing. I've never heard the word "Kaffirs." Was it considered a racial slur when he said it? Maybe another KX quote fits here: "There was a black flag on everything around me and I was walking backwards again."
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Apr 5, 2020 11:00:13 GMT
*deletes thread because he doesn't like responses* *calls everyone else snowflakes* It was a trigger thread to call out his own notion of racism. Perhaps he should try starting lighthearted threads because he’s slipping back into the OP habit again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Apr 5, 2020 13:16:45 GMT
It was a trigger thread to call out his own notion of racism. Perhaps he should try starting lighthearted threads because he’s slipping back into the OP habit again. Snowflakes ARE lighthearted.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Apr 5, 2020 17:20:53 GMT
Regardless, it devalued African-Americans as being worth only 60% of a white person. In a true republic, they would have been counted as one person and given the vote. Counting three out of five slaves for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population does not translate to individuals being "60% of a white person." I originally stated that slavery is enshrined in the U.S Constitution. It is. No one disputes that. It took the 13th Amendment and a Civil War to change that. Bottom line, black slaves were counted as .6 of a freeman. You said I was making shit up. And the fugitive slave act where escaped slaves can be apprehended in free states is also written into the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Apr 5, 2020 17:25:29 GMT
No, it's relevant today when African-American families only have half the net worth of white Americans. It's an institutionalized problem which must be addresses by reparations. Net worth of what Gamey? There are many many more poor white people in the US than blacks. It is not a race thing, it is an establishment status quo issue, which includes all ethnicities\races.
I will add also, that the same point you bring up, could also apply to homosexuality. I don't know about the US, but federal laws in other western countries made it illegal to engage in homosexuality activity. The same could be said about giving reparations to gay people for being told they were wrong and treated like second class citizens in the eyes of the law. I'd say the US would have had state laws regarding homosexuality. Also for subjugating women for not giving them the vote. Time to move on Gamey.
No, it's an issue of slavery that blacks are still behind whites in matters of income. What other explanation could there be? You tell me? Are blacks genetically inferior? Or did slavery set them back? There are all sorts of injustices in the past. Slavery is different in that it was enshrined in the Constitution while at the same time it was at odds with the Bill of Rights. Latinos and homosexuals may suffer discrimination, but we were never shackled and deprived of our freedom to leave.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 5, 2020 19:08:39 GMT
All the people involved with US slavery are dead but I suppose being divisive and virtuous on behalf of long dead people gives some a sense empowerment, you know because doing something about injustices that exist now would be effort and have the potential for failure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 5, 2020 23:39:14 GMT
Counting three out of five slaves for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population does not translate to individuals being "60% of a white person." I originally stated that slavery is enshrined in the U.S Constitution. It is. No one disputes that. It took the 13th Amendment and a Civil War to change that. Bottom line, black slaves were counted as .6 of a freeman. You said I was making shit up. And the fugitive slave act where escaped slaves can be apprehended in free states is also written into the Constitution. Counting three out of five slaves for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population does not translate to individuals being ".6 of a freeman."
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Apr 6, 2020 0:06:45 GMT
Net worth of what Gamey? There are many many more poor white people in the US than blacks. It is not a race thing, it is an establishment status quo issue, which includes all ethnicities\races.
I will add also, that the same point you bring up, could also apply to homosexuality. I don't know about the US, but federal laws in other western countries made it illegal to engage in homosexuality activity. The same could be said about giving reparations to gay people for being told they were wrong and treated like second class citizens in the eyes of the law. I'd say the US would have had state laws regarding homosexuality. Also for subjugating women for not giving them the vote. Time to move on Gamey.
No, it's an issue of slavery that blacks are still behind whites in matters of income. What other explanation could there be? You tell me? Are blacks genetically inferior? Or did slavery set them back? There are all sorts of injustices in the past. Slavery is different in that it was enshrined in the Constitution while at the same time it was at odds with the Bill of Rights. Latinos and homosexuals may suffer discrimination, but we were never shackled and deprived of our freedom to leave. Behind compared to whom? Is there another reason for this besides using slavery as a scapegoat? One only need look at Africa and its history and culture to see how the continent has developed. Africa has been exploited by whites, but also exploited by its own people.
The constitution has always been a source of contention regarding what it says and how things get administered. It is a buffer only to protect those that can use and manipulate it for their own self-serving means. It is man-made, so therefore very flawed and disingenuous.
Homosexuality operates on a different sphere, as that is a subtext within all races and creeds. It still operates as a subterfuge and does come wrapped up in a human rights package, due to others sense of attitude, ignorance, prejudice and bigotry and all based purely on sexual attraction.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Apr 6, 2020 0:15:55 GMT
I originally stated that slavery is enshrined in the U.S Constitution. It is. No one disputes that. It took the 13th Amendment and a Civil War to change that. Bottom line, black slaves were counted as .6 of a freeman. You said I was making shit up. And the fugitive slave act where escaped slaves can be apprehended in free states is also written into the Constitution. Counting three out of five slaves for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population does not translate to individuals being ".6 of a freeman." Do the math. The hell it don't. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Apr 6, 2020 0:41:31 GMT
All the people involved with US slavery are dead but I suppose being divisive and virtuous on behalf of long dead people gives some a sense empowerment, you know because doing something about injustices that exist now would be effort and have the potential for failure. So in other words, being phony virtuous and instead of looking at dealing with issues currently at hand, it is another typical ruse and distraction to dig into the past and procrastinate by attempting to make amends and project some kind of guilt conscience that isn't even real.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 6, 2020 1:09:01 GMT
Counting three out of five slaves for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population does not translate to individuals being ".6 of a freeman." Do the math. The hell it don't. Three out of five slaves were counted for the census, which means each of them were considered 3/3 of a human being. Adding in the other two to conclude they were all considered 2/3 of a human being is convoluted logic. Furthermore, it had nothing to do with whether or not they were considered human beings and everything to do with the numbers. You know...math.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Apr 6, 2020 1:53:42 GMT
Do the math. The hell it don't. Three out of five slaves were counted for the census, which means each of them were considered 3/3 of a human being. Adding in the other two to conclude they were all considered 2/3 of a human being is convoluted logic. Furthermore, it had nothing to do with whether or not they were considered human beings and everything to do with the numbers. You know...math. Nonsense. You can try any convoluted extrapolation of parsed words you want. So you're saying they pretended 40% of black slaves didn't exist? That's even worse than saying they're 3/5 of a human being. Bottom line, the contortionists wrote slavery into the Constitution. That's the main point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 6, 2020 2:18:21 GMT
Three out of five slaves were counted for the census, which means each of them were considered 3/3 of a human being. Adding in the other two to conclude they were all considered 2/3 of a human being is convoluted logic. Furthermore, it had nothing to do with whether or not they were considered human beings and everything to do with the numbers. You know...math. Nonsense. You can try any convoluted extrapolation of parsed words you want. So you're saying they pretended 40% of black slaves didn't exist? No, I'm saying they were not counted for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population. The Constitution says that the total size of a state's delegation to the House (ie, number of Representatives) depends on its population. I believe it's something like one for every 40k or so people. If I go to Mexico and bring back 100 million Mexicans to Los Angeles, does California then get 2,000 additional Representatives?
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Apr 6, 2020 2:48:50 GMT
Nonsense. You can try any convoluted extrapolation of parsed words you want. So you're saying they pretended 40% of black slaves didn't exist? No, I'm saying they were not counted for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population. The Constitution says that the total size of a state's delegation to the House (ie, number of Representatives) depends on its population. I believe it's something like one for every 40k or so people. If I go to Mexico and bring back 100 million Mexicans to Los Angeles, does California then get 2,000 additional Representatives? Actually, non-citizens are counted in the census. So their numbers are used to decide the size of congressional districts and the number of representatives each state gets in the House. So yes, if you bring over 100 million Mexicans then California gets over a fourth of the House. But the Mexicans still can't vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 6, 2020 3:01:10 GMT
No, I'm saying they were not counted for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population. The Constitution says that the total size of a state's delegation to the House (ie, number of Representatives) depends on its population. I believe it's something like one for every 40k or so people. If I go to Mexico and bring back 100 million Mexicans to Los Angeles, does California then get 2,000 additional Representatives? Actually, non-citizens are counted in the census. So their numbers are used to decide the size of congressional districts and the number of representatives each state gets in the House. So yes, if you bring over 100 million Mexicans then California gets over a fourth of the House. But the Mexicans still can't vote. And you think no one should have a problem with that.. some did and thus the 3/5ths compromise. There are reasons behind things if you bother to learn them. Reminder, you're bitching about people long dead. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 6, 2020 4:09:12 GMT
No, I'm saying they were not counted for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population. The Constitution says that the total size of a state's delegation to the House (ie, number of Representatives) depends on its population. I believe it's something like one for every 40k or so people. If I go to Mexico and bring back 100 million Mexicans to Los Angeles, does California then get 2,000 additional Representatives? Actually, non-citizens are counted in the census. So their numbers are used to decide the size of congressional districts and the number of representatives each state gets in the House. So yes, if you bring over 100 million Mexicans then California gets over a fourth of the House. But the Mexicans still can't vote. So the state with the most Mexicans wins the House? Better not let Texas hear about that. At any rate, I'm sure there were many back then who truly believed that blacks were not "fully human," (not unlike how Jews were viewed by the Nazis), but that isn't why only 66% of them were counted for the census. As stated, the reason only three out of five slaves were counted for the census was... drum roll please...
for legislative representation and taxing purposes based on population.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Apr 6, 2020 4:16:11 GMT
Actually, non-citizens are counted in the census. So their numbers are used to decide the size of congressional districts and the number of representatives each state gets in the House. So yes, if you bring over 100 million Mexicans then California gets over a fourth of the House. But the Mexicans still can't vote. And you think no one should have a problem with that.. some did and thus the 3/5ths compromise. There are reasons behind things if you bother to learn them. Reminder, you're bitching about people long dead. Yeah, I have a problem with that. And I suspect the usual racism from whiteboys like you, but stop coming off like a bitchy little c**t. I'm GameBoy. It doesn't impress me. The democratic principle which founded this nation was one man one vote. Every part of the Constitution says that except the few odd concessions to slavery. And the U.S. Supreme Court has determined one man one vote to be the intent of the founders despite their 18th century racial prejudices. The 3/5 compromise was a compromise to maximize the power of the north against the south. But that does not mitigate the ethical issue of only counting an American citizen as 3/5th's of a human being.
|
|
