White Tucker Carlson Guest (Mark Steyn) Says African-Americans ‘Need to Move on’ From Slavery

[Machiavelli]

White Tucker Carlson Guest Says African-Americans ‘Need to Move on’ From Slavery (Video)

Jon Levine
The Wrap
February 22, 2019

Tucker Carlson guest Mark Steyn offered his thoughts and slavery and the issue of reparations to the descendants of U.S. slaves, telling viewers of Carlson’s Fox News show Thursday that nobody living today knew anyone who had been a slave and that people just needed to move on from the whole issue.

“Slavery was abolished a century and a half ago. Nobody alive today had a grandparent who was a slave and in that sense I think you reach a point where, you know, you need to move on,” said, Steyn, a Canadian author and culture commentator who is white. “The reparations thing eventually, as the decades go by, becomes ridiculous.” ...

The moment comes as Carlson faces a months long advertiser boycott after a segment on his show in December in which he said illegal immigration made the United States “poorer” and “dirtier.” Since that episode, major brands like Pacific Life, Red Lobster, SmileDirectClub and dozens of others have pulled ads from the show...

More, with video clip

[Wingnut]

Reparations will also make “poorer” and “dirtier.”

[Mesaclone]

White Tucker Carlson Guest Says African-Americans ‘Need to Move on’ From Slavery (Video)

Jon Levine
The Wrap
February 22, 2019

More, with video clip

Good for him. Its entirely true.

The idea of reparations is absurd. Who pays...what if your ancestors arrived here AFTER 1865....what if ancestors lived in the north where there was no slavery? What if some of your ancestors came before 1865 and some after...do you pay a percentage of the reparations tax? Do all black people get reparations or must they prove their ancestry? When do I get reparations from Italy...they conquered and enslaved my German ancestors during the heyday of the Roman Empire so it seems only fair, right?

Only a true dumbass could be in favor of reparations.

[skeeter]

Demanding taxpayer reparations for an institution that ended 156 years ago gives us all a voice in the debate, even if we are white.

[240B]

Most Black activists talk about slavery as if it is over. They push the idea that slavery happened only in America, was done only to Black people, and only White people benefited from it.

Slavery is alive and well, today, right now, all over Africa and in Muslim countries. But American Black activists refuse to discuss current on-going slavery happening all over the world. They are solely focused on one single instance of slavery in America.

They know full well that the Black slave owners today in Africa, and the Muslim slave owners, and the Indian and Asian slave owners, aren't going to pay them a single dime. So they have decided to fixate on White Guilt hoping that the White Liberals in America will throw around some payola for their supposed 'suffering' from 150 years ago.

BTW, are my ancestors who fought and died with the Union Army going to get 'reparations' for all they had to endure during the Civil War?

[libertybele]

Most Black activists talk about slavery as if it is over. They push the idea that slavery happened only in America, was done only to Black people, and only White people benefited from it.

Slavery is alive and well, today, right now, all over Africa and in Muslim countries. But American Black activists refuse to discuss current on-going slavery happening all over the world. They are solely focused on one single instance of slavery in America.

They know full well that the Black slave owners today in Africa, and the Muslim slave owners, and the Indian and Asian slave owners, aren't going to pay them a single dime. So they have decided to fixate on White Guilt hoping that the White Liberals in America will throw around some payola for their supposed 'suffering' from 150 years ago.

BTW, are my ancestors who fought and died with the Union Army going to get 'reparations' for all they had to endure during the Civil War?

Let's not forget about the Mexican drug cartel's sex slavery.

[Bigun]

Most Black activists talk about slavery as if it is over. They push the idea that slavery happened only in America, was done only to Black people, and only White people benefited from it.

Slavery is alive and well, today, right now, all over Africa and in Muslim countries. But American Black activists refuse to discuss current on-going slavery happening all over the world. They are solely focused on one single instance of slavery in America.

They know full well that the Black slave owners today in Africa, and the Muslim slave owners, and the Indian and Asian slave owners, aren't going to pay them a single dime. So they have decided to fixate on White Guilt hoping that the White Liberals in America will throw around some payola for their supposed 'suffering' from 150 years ago.

BTW, are my ancestors who fought and died with the Union Army going to get 'reparations' for all they had to endure during the Civil War?

The very first person to own a slave here was a black man named Anthony Johnson.   You can look it up.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Most Black activists talk about slavery as if it is over. They push the idea that slavery happened only in America, was done only to Black people, and only White people benefited from it.

Slavery is alive and well, today, right now, all over Africa and in Muslim countries. But American Black activists refuse to discuss current on-going slavery happening all over the world. They are solely focused on one single instance of slavery in America.

They know full well that the Black slave owners today in Africa, and the Muslim slave owners, and the Indian and Asian slave owners, aren't going to pay them a single dime. So they have decided to fixate on White Guilt hoping that the White Liberals in America will throw around some payola for their supposed 'suffering' from 150 years ago.

BTW, are my ancestors who fought and died with the Union Army going to get 'reparations' for all they had to endure during the Civil War?

I've read that around 5% of slaves shipped to the New World came to America.  5%.  That's like 1 out of every 20.  Obviously slavery only happened in the USA.

Even Obama's Beer Summit Buddy agrees:

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/how-many-slaves-landed-in-the-us/

[edpc]

Jews were slaves in Egypt. During the days of the Roman Empire, people from conquered parts of Europe were taken as slaves. This phenomenon isn't unique to sub-Saharan Africans.

[Fishrrman]

240b wrote:
"Slavery is alive and well, today, right now, all over Africa and in Muslim countries. But American Black activists refuse to discuss current on-going slavery happening all over the world. They are solely focused on one single instance of slavery in America."

You're right, of course.
But you have to hand it to these black hucksters -- they know how to stoke their crowds and stir the pots.

They're doin' what one might expect them to do -- can't blame THEM for it.

So... who's to blame?

WE are.
The "stupid white folks".
And brother, ARE we "stupid".
We've got "white guilt" inside that, like some emotional cornucopia, never seems to end. It just keeps churnin' and pourin' out while the black hucksters keep yellin' and whippin' us with it.

And that's the way it's gonna be, until you -- yes, YOU -- just say to yourself, "no more".

I passed that point decades ago.
Anyone else here brave enough to admit that?

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Demanding taxpayer reparations for an institution that ended 156 years ago gives us all a voice in the debate, even if we are white.

Absolutely.

If Anyone gets Reparations for the theft of Their life and labor, . . . . I Want Mine Too as a 14th Amendment Equal Protection Issue, for all the sleazy breaking my back, picking my pockets, and stealing my Rights I've been subjected to by Democrats in Govt.

[Smokin Joe]

240b wrote:
"Slavery is alive and well, today, right now, all over Africa and in Muslim countries. But American Black activists refuse to discuss current on-going slavery happening all over the world. They are solely focused on one single instance of slavery in America."

You're right, of course.
But you have to hand it to these black hucksters -- they know how to stoke their crowds and stir the pots.

They're doin' what one might expect them to do -- can't blame THEM for it.

So... who's to blame?

WE are.
The "stupid white folks".
And brother, ARE we "stupid".
We've got "white guilt" inside that, like some emotional cornucopia, never seems to end. It just keeps churnin' and pourin' out while the black hucksters keep yellin' and whippin' us with it.

And that's the way it's gonna be, until you -- yes, YOU -- just say to yourself, "no more".

I passed that point decades ago.
Anyone else here brave enough to admit that?

I have no guilt. If history is studied, most families in the south lost almost everything to foragers, the torch, or to carpetbaggers after the war. Very few were unscathed, and if they owned slaves, they lost that investment, too. 
The very poor and the very rich did about the same, they stayed very poor, or relatively speaking, rich. The folks in the middle had the greatest downward mobility. Some "white privilege".

Me? I never owned anyone. I can't see where I benefited from something that happened long before my grandparents were born, and I"m a great grandpa. I got to the town I live in, in the hulk of a car that had been t-boned, with all I owned on it and in it, and through boom and bust and a lot of sweat and toil, managed to pay off a modest house and buy a few things. We raised some rug rats along the way. I'm satisfied with that, but while my wife helped, there wasn't anyone there to haul my water.

White Guilt? Oh, Hell no!
But I'm getting real tired of listening to people driving nicer, newer vehicles and wearing nicer clothes than I have telling me I 'owe' them a d@mned thing. I don't.

[Applewood]

Jews were slaves in Egypt. During the days of the Roman Empire, people from conquered parts of Europe were taken as slaves. This phenomenon isn't unique to sub-Saharan Africans.

I suppose if I traced my European ancestors back far enough, I might find some who were serfs.  Serfs were farm laborers  forced to work the fields for feudal lords.  "Serf" is another word for "slave."

[Bigun]

I suppose if I traced my European ancestors back far enough, I might find some who were serfs.  Serfs were farm laborers  forced to work the fields for feudal lords.  "Serf" is another word for "slave."

There were plenty of white slaves right here in America, primarily in the Northern States!  They didn't call them slaves but they were in everything but name.  The Irish!

[Smokin Joe]

There were plenty of white slaves right here in America, primarily in the Northern States!  They didn't call them slaves but they were in everything but name.  The Irish!

They were cheaper than slaves. No buy in, no investment to protect. That;s why the Irish ended up with the dangerous jobs: Fireman, Police, Longshoreman, Teamster, Powder Monkey, etc... Slaves were too expensive to risk.  The Irishman got killed on the job, the generous would pay for the funeral and give the widow a token payment, others, nothing. Just hire another one. They could even charge them for their rent, instead of having to provide room, board, clothing, and a doctor when it was needed, something slaveowners had to do or they'd be out their investment.

[Absalom]

There were plenty of white slaves right here in America, primarily in the Northern States!  They didn't call them slaves but they were in everything but name.  The Irish!

----------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense!
Europeans came here for religious reasons (escaping intolerance) or for economic reasons(opportunity). Those who came for the latter were indentured servants who paid for their passage by agreeing to
non-reimbursed work for a specific time period. This tradition developed from serfdom, common in Europe following the collapse of the Roman Empire.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

*1: IF it's Mark Steyn, there's no sense in even applying a standard IQ test to him. He'd blow clean through the roof of it anyway.

*2:  Ask the Reparations Moochers How Much they're willing to Deduct out of their pot of Free Money to pay it out to the descendants of Union Soldiers as Death and Dismemberment disbursements.

[sneakypete]

SOMEBODY needed to say it in public.

[sneakypete]

what if ancestors lived in the north where there was no slavery?

@Mesaclone


Uhhhh,there WERE slaves in the north. None less that Union Army US General U.S. Grant still owned slaves the day the  Civil War ended,and had to free them as a result.

 

[libertybele]

Demanding taxpayer reparations for an institution that ended 156 years ago gives us all a voice in the debate, even if we are white.

There were white slaves as well.  I want reparation too!!  I am a white female!  Also, my ancestors were Slavic!!

 Under Muslim rule, the Arab slave trades that included Caucasian captives were often fueled by raids into European territories or were taken as children in the form of a blood tax from the families of citizens of conquered territories to serve the empire for a variety of functions. In the mid-19th century, the term 'white slavery' was used to describe the Christian slaves that were sold into the Barbary slave trade.

 Slavic slaves, kidnapped from the coasts of Europe or in wars, as well as white mercenaries in the medieval Muslim world, in the Middle East, North Africa, Sicily and Al-Andalus. Saqaliba served, or were forced to serve, in a multitude of ways: servants, harem concubines, eunuchs, craftsmen, soldiers, and as Caliph's guards.

The International Agreement for the suppression of the White Slave Traffic is a series of anti–human trafficking treaties, the first of which was first negotiated in Paris in 1904. It was one of the first multilateral treaties to address issues of slavery and human trafficking. The Slavery, Servitude, Forced Labour and Similar Institutions and Practices Convention of 1926 and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women of Full Age of 1933 are similar documents.
White Slave Traffic Act of 1910.

To battle sex trafficking in the United States, in 1910 the US Congress passed the White Slave Traffic Act (better known as the Mann Act), which made it a felony to transport women across state borders for the purpose of "prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose." As more women were being trafficked from foreign countries, the US began passing immigration acts to curtail aliens from entering the country such as the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924. Following the banning of immigrants during the 1920s, human trafficking was not considered a major issue until the 1990s.
Criminal Law Amendment (White Slave Traffic) Bill

An attempt was made to introduce a similar law into the UK between 1910 and 1913 as the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1912. Arthur Lee would state in the House of Commons: "the United Kingdom, and particularly England, is increasingly becoming a clearing-house and depot and dispatch centre of the white slave traffic, and the headquarters of the foreign agents engaged in the most expensive and lucrative phase of the business."[46] South America was stated as the main destination for the trafficked girls. The Spectator commented that "the Bill has been blocked by a member [alluding to Frederick Booth ] or members who, for various reasons consider that it is not a measure which ought to be placed upon the statute book" as it would affect the liberty of the individual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_slavery

[Smokin Joe]

@Mesaclone


Uhhhh,there WERE slaves in the north. None less that Union Army US General U.S. Grant still owned slaves the day the  Civil War ended,and had to free them as a result.

 

Anyone who reads the Emancipation Proclamation would realize Lincoln freed the slaves in those States in Rebellion (where any jurisdiction was in hot dispute), not the North.

Another reason I don't buy the whole 'war fought to end slavery" thing.

[Mesaclone]

Anyone who reads the Emancipation Proclamation would realize Lincoln freed the slaves in those States in Rebellion (where any jurisdiction was in hot dispute), not the North.

Another reason I don't buy the whole 'war fought to end slavery" thing.

This is technically correct, but slavery in the north as an institution was rare and frowned upon. Further, many states had outlawed directly by 1860...though they still were required to respect rules of property ownership if a "legal" slave owner entered the state with his property (thank you, commerce clause).

In the North, it was a essentially a dead institution at the start of the war. As mentioned above, the type of industry rising in the north required cheap labor and in many ways, slaves were expensive and minimally productive. Aside from the moral revulsion of the practice, it was inefficient.

The war was most definitely not fought to end slavery, though it is also true that slavery was a major component in the dispute between north and south...but it was, nonetheless, more of a symptom of their disparate interests and economic modes then a casus belli.

And let's be clear, very few people in the south owned slaves...and the existence of slaves did much to drive down wages and lower the standard of living of regular southerners. Maybe 4.5% or so of people owned a slave of their own...it was a rich man's practice focused on agriculture.

[sneakypete]

Anyone who reads the Emancipation Proclamation would realize Lincoln freed the slaves in those States in Rebellion (where any jurisdiction was in hot dispute), not the North.

Another reason I don't buy the whole 'war fought to end slavery" thing.

@Smokin Joe

Once again,Lincoln wrote in his diary that if he could keep the south in the union he would be content to leave slavery in place.

Which not only tells you the War of Northern Aggression had NOTHING to do with slavery,but that even Lincoln didn't really care about it. Slavery was just the excuse the northern industrialists  used as an excuse to go to war against the south and bankrupt it so they could come in and buy up all the land for a penny on the dollar.

[sneakypete]

In the North, it was a essentially a dead institution at the start of the war. As mentioned above, the type of industry rising in the north required cheap labor and in many ways, slaves were expensive and minimally productive. Aside from the moral revulsion of the practice, it was inefficient.

 

@Mescalone

Yet the northern factory owners had no problem firing the newly uppity eastern Europeans who were beginning to agitate for shorter hours and better pay,and replace them with the newly freed slaves who were happy working for even less money. Let's face it,factory work in the mid-1800's wasn't what anyone would call high-tech.

[Mesaclone]

@Mescalone

Yet the northern factory owners had no problem firing the newly uppity eastern Europeans who were beginning to agitate for shorter hours and better pay,and replace them with the newly freed slaves who were happy working for even less money. Let's face it,factory work in the mid-1800's wasn't what anyone would call high-tech.

I think that's the point...slavery was less affordable to northern industry than dirt cheap immigrant labor. Wages were so suppressed by the excess of cheap immigrants that it was easy to take the "moral high ground" of opposing slavery...all while grinding poor northern whites and freed slaves into economic sawdust for their production mills. The slaves weren't freed due to moral obligation, but rather it was about fiscal convenience...the "moral" crusaders like John Brown and the Quakers were conveniently used as symbols to motivate the public but, as always, money drove change.

None of this is to diminish the horror that was slavery, but its clear that nothing we can do today will wash away that stain on our national honor. Reparations would only deepen that stain by creating new injustice. All we as nation can do today is to follow the guidance of Martin Luther King and ensure that Americans will "not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

The horrible irony of today is that the "supposed" defenders of progressive thought seek just the opposite of MLK's dictate...they are striving to be sure that all of us "ARE judged by the color of our skin, and that the content of our character is irrelevant".

It is conservatives who, today, are fighting to follow in the footsteps of MLK's great aspiration...and liberals who seek to destroy that legacy.