[RD] Where BLM Isn't Needed

[Zardnaar]

Government here is paying restitution via the Waitangi Tribunal which examines historical claims from the colonial era.

Found an image from the 1940s.

Spoiler 1940 NZ :

Be interesting what others think if it in regards to how it depicts the Maori.

 

[amadeus]

You say that like it's a lot.

In human political, economic, and scientific developments? I think it is.

Consider: 150 years ago saw the founding of the German Empire, neither the lightbulb nor the telephone had been invented, and half of the U.S. labor force worked in agriculture.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I get it. People want to legally grab things. But that's no way to run a nation, because it implies no incentive to make/have things if allowed.

A large number of people immigrated to nations like the USA long after the abolition of slavery. Many of them poor themselves, in some cases fleeing their own bad conditions (as war refugees, for example). Now people claim these folks somehow had more privilege. Meanwhile, mixed race people with actual plantation slave owners as ancestors can somehow claim said immigrants owe them something.

Nevermind who sold others into slavery in the first place, or that if you go back a bit more in history many of those "99% white population" also had slavery in their own history. 100-150 years earlier and it doesn't count anymore? Where are we drawing the line in this arbitrary discussion of wrongs committed outside any of our lifetimes? Restitution for actions > century ago is not a functional proposition. We really do need to look at policy in the present and evaluate what actions get us outcomes we prefer.

I don't really understand what you're trying to tell me, sadly. I never called for restitution for anything, all I said was that clearly the money and the material wealth created by the institution of slavery still runs in the same circles as it did back then, and that almost the entire white population benefitted off of it via compound effects. These effects did not just disappear, they exist today. England and the Netherlands are partially rich today because they were colonial nations. Of course Colonialism and Slavery were not the only reasons, but they are one of many reasons.

If anything, what I would call for is to get rid of inheritance completely and tax similiar financial transactions. I was never asking for "repaiment" for crimes committed against slaves 150 years ago. Not because I'm in opposition to that at all, because I'm not, but simply because I think it's not very helpful. So in a sense I was exactly advocating the same as you do.. "We really do need to look at policy in the present and evaluate what actions get us outcomes we prefer".. I made a direct policy proposal to stop the things from happening to future generations.

Slavery never really caught on in Europe

You are completely delusional. Just please stop espousing these ridiculous, false opinions. Europe struggled with both slavery and slave-trade well into the 19th century. Russia struggled with Serfdom even longer. Ancient Greece was one of the authors of slavery and slave trade. As were Romans. Why do you think "slave revolts" were a thing if there was no slavery?

Contrary to your claims, even in the Christian Middle Ages slavery was still going strong. The Holy Roman Empire had slave raids. Vikings had slave raids. The literal Bishop St. Patrick was a slave at one point in his life. Christians sold Muslim slaves until the 19th century. Italy had major slave trade hubs in Genoa. Many of the slaves were indeed Europeans: Slavs, Poles, anything goes really.

A lot got used for sex slaves. Alot would have been breed out or otherwise integrated into their societies. The children would have their fathers name, position etc.

Every now and then you see a Turk or whatever that could pass for a an Englishman. Whether they are descended from slaves or another minority in Turkey idk.

Slavery wasn't as race based in the former Muslim lands. Although they were happy to enslave Africans.

Some where also castrated so no descendents. Long term solves that problem.

There's also black ex slaves in places like Pakistan. They get discriminated against.

This is just racist pseudoscience and claims without any evidence. A lot of Europeans were used as sex slaves? Does the numer, which you claim is "a lot" come close to the Atlantic slave trade? Or any other reasonably big slave trade operation? I would really, really like for you to name a source here. Because I definitely do not believe that white sex slaves were anywhere near as numerous as any other meaningful group of slaves.

Also, your comments about Turkish people are just really offputting. Turks are to some degree Europeans, there was a time in our history when we all agreed that Turks and Greeks are not all that different phenotypically. (In these times the nations of Greece and Turkey did not exist, I wonder if that helped..).

The idea that "some Turks look really white" is in any way an argument for "Turkey has lots of descendants of white sex slaves" is so absurd it makes me want to rip my hair out.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't really understand what you're trying to tell me, sadly. I never called for restitution for anything, all I said was that clearly the money and the material wealth created by the institution of slavery still runs in the same circles as it did back then, and that almost the entire white population benefitted off of it via compound effects. These effects did not just disappear, they exist today. England and the Netherlands are partially rich today because they were colonial nations. Of course Colonialism and Slavery were not the only reasons, but they are one of many reasons.

If anything, what I would call for is to get rid of inheritance completely and tax similiar financial transactions. I was never asking for "repaiment" for crimes committed against slaves 150 years ago. Not because I'm in opposition to that at all, because I'm not, but simply because I think it's not very helpful. So in a sense I was exactly advocating the same as you do.. "We really do need to look at policy in the present and evaluate what actions get us outcomes we prefer".. I made a direct policy proposal to stop the things from happening to future generations.



You are completely delusional. Just please stop espousing these ridiculous, false opinions. Europe struggled with both slavery and slave-trade well into the 19th century. Russia struggled with Serfdom even longer. Ancient Greece was one of the authors of slavery and slave trade. As were Romans. Why do you think "slave revolts" were a thing if there was no slavery?

Contrary to your claims, even in the Christian Middle Ages slavery was still going strong. The Holy Roman Empire had slave raids. Vikings had slave raids. The literal Bishop St. Patrick was a slave at one point in his life. Christians sold Muslim slaves until the 19th century. Italy had major slave trade hubs in Genoa. Many of the slaves were indeed Europeans: Slavs, Poles, anything goes really.



This is just racist pseudoscience and claims without any evidence. A lot of Europeans were used as sex slaves? Does the numer, which you claim is "a lot" come close to the Atlantic slave trade? Or any other reasonably big slave trade operation? I would really, really like for you to name a source here. Because I definitely do not believe that white sex slaves were anywhere near as numerous as any other meaningful group of slaves.

Also, your comments about Turkish people are just really offputting. Turks are to some degree Europeans, there was a time in our history when we all agreed that Turks and Greeks are not all that different phenotypically. (In these times the nations of Greece and Turkey did not exist, I wonder if that helped..).

The idea that "some Turks look really white" is in any way an argument for "Turkey has lots of descendants of white sex slaves" is so absurd it makes me want to rip my hair out.

It's a factor, Circassians were popular.

Serfdom isn't slavery they have more rights. It's not nice, fair etc. Serfdom died out in most of Europe.

Did slavery exist in Europe absolutely but they didn't really have things like slave states.

I said it was illegal to enslave Christians. Muslims were enslaved when captured absolutely.

They didn't have widespread institutionalized slavery like the American system.

Otherwise read some books about the Crimean Khanate, and Barbary states. They depopulated area or what's now Ukraine and various islands.

Where do you think the Ottoman harems came from?

China castrated their black slaves, there's an afro Pakistan minority.

You do realize slavery was legal into the 1960s and 70s in parts of the Islamic world?

ISIS in Syria didn't really do anything the Ottomans didn't do. Have you heard of the Janissaries?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I said it was illegal to enslave Christians. Muslims were enslaved when captured absolutely.

That's just factually wrong and I posted an example which proved just that.. Seems like you do not pay attention to the posts you answer to and just go off.

Did slavery exist in Europe absolutely but they didn't really have things like slave states.

They didn't have widespread institutionalized slavery like the American system.

You are making an argument that only chattel slavery is real slavery, which is just wrong.

You do realize slavery was legal into the 1960s and 70s in parts of the Islamic world?

it still is common in Oman and Saudi Arabia, actually. how's that straw man working out for ya? who are you arguing against?

your entire argument boils down to: But others did slavery much worse!! Which is not an argument in the first place.

I don't give a solitary ****. You were clearly wrong, you misrepresent history to fit your narrative, and I called you out on it. I could not care less about your tangential talking points, they do not affect anything I've said. Whether I have heard of Jannisaries or not (I have) does not affect the historic fact that Christians sometimes enslaves other Christians in Europe. Especially women, which you seem to completely ignore.

 

[AntSou]

The basis for the argument is to point out that enforcement of reparations or adjustments based on past injustices needs coherent, consistent standards. Just as an example, if a descendent of those rulers happened to immigrate to the US in 1970, why should they not be expected to cover reparations similar to slave owners descendants in the US? I rarely ever see such an assertion made by those who are pro-reparation,

Those who are pro reparations are a minority and the argument of reparations is constantly brought up by those who oppose change to try and denegrate and avoid discussing the issues people are actually protesting about.

You're doing it yourself. You keep moving the argument there because it's safe. And while you're discussing reparations, you don't need to address any of the issues people are actually claiming: reformed police and reformed political and educational systems.

The difference between slavery of whites and that of blacks is that whites suffered it nearly exclusively in the pre-revolutionary /romantic period. Before the ideals of national identities and self-determination. Before the concept of the people being the drivers of the nation/state.

That revolution already happened in 1689, 1776, 1789, 1848, 1917, just to mention some of the most starking dates. It was incremental and it took centuries.

In human political, economic, and scientific developments? I think it is.

Consider: 150 years ago saw the founding of the German Empire, neither the lightbulb nor the telephone had been invented, and half of the U.S. labor force worked in agriculture.

Technological and Scientific? Certainly. Politically and economically we're still essentially discussing the same things we were two centuries ago. It's been mostly variation and expansion on the same concepts.

 

[El_Machinae]

I can see why people criticize the name "black lives matter". I mean, if black lives really mattered, people would donate to the MSF. But they don't. So it's clear that the term black lives matter doesn't actually mean black lives matter. It's shorthand, and it is okay if you just realize what the shorthand means.

Black lives matter represents one specific concern: that systemic imbalances create situations where black people are more likely to be killed by police, and are specifically concerned about times when there's police over reach. And they notice the interlinking parts of society that make this outcome more likely, and every single person you talked to will weight their concerns differently

It's concerned about a power imbalance that's causing deaths. It's not really about saving black lives, because as we've seen, people don't really care about black lives. But we all have a instinct regarding how Justice is supposed to work, and the BLM movement is expressing dissatisfaction along that aspect of our morality.

At everyone that counter punches by insisting that all lives matter should also just shut up and donate to the MSF.

Criticizing the movement by insisting on literal interpretation of the phrase is just diversion. Might as well be upset that seahorses are not related to actual horses

 

[warpus]

If the name was different, the people who criticize the name would just find something else to complain about

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't really understand what you're trying to tell me, sadly. I never called for restitution for anything, all I said was that clearly the money and the material wealth created by the institution of slavery still runs in the same circles as it did back then, and that almost the entire white population benefitted off of it via compound effects. These effects did not just disappear, they exist today. England and the Netherlands are partially rich today because they were colonial nations. Of course Colonialism and Slavery were not the only reasons, but they are one of many reasons.

If anything, what I would call for is to get rid of inheritance completely and tax similiar financial transactions. I was never asking for "repaiment" for crimes committed against slaves 150 years ago. Not because I'm in opposition to that at all, because I'm not, but simply because I think it's not very helpful. So in a sense I was exactly advocating the same as you do.. "We really do need to look at policy in the present and evaluate what actions get us outcomes we prefer".. I made a direct policy proposal to stop the things from happening to future generations.

Taxing already taxed assets happens today, so that's not a new concept. Said proposal still amounts to grabbing on the basis of "that person needs this more than you do", however.

And yes, everything in history has at least some kind of causal link to the state of the world after it happened, but that by itself doesn't meaningfully create a basis for policy.

Those who are pro reparations are a minority and the argument of reparations is constantly brought up by those who oppose change to try and denegrate and avoid discussing the issues people are actually protesting about.

Do you actually know the ratio of people who weigh in on this issue? I don't, and I don't see where we can reliably access that information.

You're doing it yourself. You keep moving the argument there because it's safe. And while you're discussing reparations, you don't need to address any of the issues people are actually claiming: reformed police and reformed political and educational systems.

Saying this after my previous post in this thread isn't just disingenuous, it's dishonest.

It's true that the educational system could do with less indoctrinating people too though.

The difference between slavery of whites and that of blacks is that whites suffered it nearly exclusively in the pre-revolutionary /romantic period. Before the ideals of national identities and self-determination. Before the concept of the people being the drivers of the nation/state.

Slavery in the Ottoman empire continued longer than slavery in the United States.

The US has unique circumstances given how it has attained populations of slaves and non-slaves, and the way they've lived in the same territory after abolition. But it'd still be better not to misrepresent history or lie. Reliance on those does not make for convincing arguments.

 

[Kyriakos]

Also, your comments about Turkish people are just really offputting. Turks are to some degree Europeans, there was a time in our history when we all agreed that Turks and Greeks are not all that different phenotypically. (In these times the nations of Greece and Turkey did not exist, I wonder if that helped..).

The idea that "some Turks look really white" is in any way an argument for "Turkey has lots of descendants of white sex slaves" is so absurd it makes me want to rip my hair out.

Actual turkish people are steppe people, from central Asia. That said, the ratio of turkish people to those in conquered territories was obviously very small, so only a minority are really turkish - so to speak. If you want some bizarre/kitsch fun, you could look for youtube videos where turkish people yell due to discovering with the dna test craze they are greek or persian.

The janissary custom was very real and provided soldiers for the ottomans. The easiest way to create loyal troops from foreign populations was to just take them as children and have the state adopt them. This apparently mostly happened with slavs in the empire, but also in some cases with greeks.

 

[innonimatu]

You are making an argument that only chattel slavery is real slavery, which is just wrong.

It's actually ignorance of the existence of chattel slavery in Europe. It did exist and the contemporary description of the practices are probably inappropriate to reproduce within forum rules. Suffice to say, in the pre-modern era (modernity starting with the enlightenment social changes) the reach of the law was short and the local lords could do pretty much what they wanted with their slaves. So long as the slave traffic was legal in Europe, until the late 18th century, breeding slaves was done. In christian Europe. And whatever the color of the slaves. I also very much doubt that they could just convert to christianity and be freed. In fact I'm absolutely certain they couldn't.

 

[Joij21]

This thread is about how to run a country where BLM isn't needed. As most of you know I'm from NZ. Here our expectations of America is fairly low, carried a bit further the country is seem as a bit of a joke often a bad one.

Out of the Anglo Saxon families NZ is a lot more eglatarian than our cousins in the rest of the Anglosphere. This is because of the culture going back to the 19th century.

I would be lying if I said racism doesn't exist here but it's more of a casual sort, not the virulent strain that you see in the US. We never had slavery or segregation. We don't really have many blacks either and most are African not African Americans.

So why is this? One thing that makes NZ unique us the Maori culture who are similar to the numbers of African Americans. Colonialism was not good to them but they were never slaves except the ones that were enslaved by other tribes.

The other traditional minority is Chinese. They turned up to work the gold fields in the 19th century. They've been here longer than the concept of NZ as a nation. Early on the proto NZers saw themselves as British not NZers. Empire day was a thing.

The Maori are us. The joke here is race relations are going to be solved between the bed sheets. Intermarriage here was very common back in the days when the first Europeans here were whalers and not settlers. A lot of NZ families have Polynesians in them. I personally have Polynesian cousins and they get invited to social events as part of the family.

Informally every NZers is a kiwi. A Kiwi cuts across racial lines and it gives as a national identity. Foreigners can become a citizen but it's a bit harder to become a kiwi. Not impossible but if you're raised here you automatically become one. Doesn't really matter what colour your skin is.

The other main thing is the public school system. Basically rich, poor, black, white, brown, yellow etc you all go to the same schools. They are ranked from decile 1 (poor) to decile 10 (rich) based on the surrounding area. Low decile schools get extra government funding. My high school was decile 6 in small town NZ.

The surrounding kids in the rural areas get bused in, the urban kids don't have much choice it was kind of the only school (for boys). Rich, poor you all got the same education. More importantly you got to socialize togather.

Pretty much every kiwi male and a good chunk of the females know how to play rugby. Even if you don't like it you play it at school. Being good at rugby is kind of race blind. At high school it's the NZ equivalent of jocks. It's also team building though drummed into you from childhood.

Main point is the schools were not segregated. Neither was the town. This has somewhat recently started to break down in Auckland and the larger cities along economic lines as school districts introduced zoning laws in the 90s. I live in the South though the North is a bit different.

A side effect of the schooling system is you also pick up basic Maori even in the deep South where there used to be very few (internal migration has changed things recently, priced out of the North). Every Maori is automatically a Kiwi, so is every Pakeha, not every white person is though (sorry Europe).

Example.
Tahi, ruha, toru, wha. 1,2,3,4 Seseme Street here had Maori not Spanish.

Tangi- funeral
Hangi- earth oven
Iwi-tribe
Haka-type of dance
Kai- food.

Most children of immigrants going through the school system automatically become kiwis. Some don't but they more or less have to go out of their way to avoid becoming a kiwi.

Net result is we haven't had that break down USA is experiencing or the UK is going through. We lack the casual racism Australia has towards the Aboriginals. Since the 19th century we've had integrated schools and 3 cultures living togather more or less in peace. More cultures have arrived recently.

We haven't had a mass shooting by a kiwi in over a generation. The police are unarmed, 37 iirc police have been killed ever. Riots are practically unheard of, street protests violence is practically unheard of. It's something you read about in 40's and 50's history.

Overall it's generally very safe. I've got blind drunk and passed out in a park and not been robbed or pick pocketed. Town I grew up in you didn't have to lock the doors or the car. By international standards we are politically stable, not very corrupt and reasonably well off.

Culturally we're the closest to the Aussies, I think we've also got a lot in common with Canada. I would be lying if I claimed it's perfect here. Bad things can still happen obviously. We've had 5 tourists murdered here in 30 years for example.

This is how we have done some things. The kiwi concept and how you treat each other is a large part of how to run a society IMHO.

What exactly is the purpose of this thread? It seems to be going way off topic in the meantime with everyone else. Is this just someplace to tout that your nation is better and holier than thou? Is that your justification as to why BLM isn't needed in your country? Or is this just some thinly veiled racism on your part so you don't have to care about the plight of black people? I'm pretty sure blacks aren't treated the same as white people in your country.

 

[Zardnaar]

What exactly is the purpose of this thread? It seems to be going way off topic in the meantime with everyone else. Is this just someplace to tout that your nation is better and holier than thou? Is that your justification as to why BLM isn't needed in your country? Or is this just some thinly veiled racism on your part so you don't have to care about the plight of black people? I'm pretty sure blacks aren't treated the same as white people in your country.

I said we're not perfect but we don't have the extremes you see overseas.

There's no one sitting around actively plotting "ha ha this will screw over the non whites".

Problem here is there is a dominant culture and things like bureaucracy reflect that culture. Dealing with government departments us a pain and it's a higher pain if you're not.

For example schools in poor areas get extra funding from the government and they get extra funding for Maori students.

Schools free along health, dentists etc through to age 18/tertiary.

Successive government's have identified the problems and been trying since about the 70s to fix things.

We still have plenty of neo libs here who don't want to pay taxes which doesn't help and they win elections around 50% of the time.

Not perfect but beats me where it's any better in the world. Maybe Canada and some Euro nation's but they have their own problems.

 

[Zardnaar]

No surprise, they're not smashing them yet.

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/rapist-dunedin-protesters-target-two-statues-historic-figures

 

[REDY]

Here people spraying on W.Churchill statues.

So far no violence.

 

[Zardnaar]

Here people spraying on W.Churchill statues.

So far no violence.

I'm expecting spray painting maybe vandalism.

Eventually might get some violence, not expecting it to soon though.

Things gonna get worse before they get better though.

 

[Yeekim]

It's not possible, because American slavery was chattel slavery, and THE ENTIRETY OF BLACK AMERICANS CAME FROM SLAVERY. You cannot say the same about any group of white people anywhere in the world.

Hm. With the conclusion of Nortern Crusades in 13th century, the entire populations of Estonia and Latvia were reduced to serfdom, until it was abolished in early 19th century.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well got bored and read a 3 part series on who is probably gonna be unemployed and where.

Good news is out if the main centers I live in the second worst effected. The least effected is the capital.

Worst effected is Auckland. Auckland's the Polynesian capital of the world.

Men are losing their jobs (proportionally) more than women. Under 30s hardest hit, and brown even harder hit.

So young brown males fairly screwed with perhaps 24-25% unemployment rate.

That's going to vary region. The local tribe here is the richest one and they don't really have tribal areas to the same extent. They're more urbanized and educated. University City.

Up north though the tribal areas are in rural areas with not much in the way of employment prospects and where poverty here is concentrated.

It's harder for them to leave and if they can it's "go to Auckland" which is expensive as hell and hardest hit.

Government jobs and agricultural sector not to badly hit and that's basically the local economy. Service sector type jobs in big trouble (tourism, restaurants etc).

Cops won't kill you here, poverty might.

 

[Joij21]

No surprise, they're not smashing them yet.

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/rapist-dunedin-protesters-target-two-statues-historic-figures

That alone seems to be proof that something akin to BLM SHOULD exist in your country. Maybe not exactly BLM but maybe MLM (Maori Lives Matter) for your nation considering it's own history.

I'm expecting spray painting maybe vandalism.

Eventually might get some violence, not expecting it to soon though.

Things gonna get worse before they get better though.

Again if your going to make a claim like that, then clearly it would seem BLM is in fact needed in your community instead of claiming its not.

 

[trader/warrior]

b) there is no line to be traced from the owners of white slaves (which cannot be compared to black slaves in the first place, so I don't even know why I'm humoring this line of thought except boredom) to any modern day people, AFAIK

There was the slave state that was Nazi Germany, which used at one point 15 million of them and 20% of the work force (not necessarily all white of course), which is within living memory. Of course that didn't last very long and isn't really any sort of counter to your point. Just a technicality I felt like pointing out. Of course they had different classifications of them, but they were effectively slaves.