In 1916, Ota Benga, an African native who suffered inhumane treatment by being kept in a zoo, committed suicide.

[VCheng]

US, as a country, have 6 different jurisdictions. They are

1. Federal
2. State
3. Tribal (Indian Reservation)
4. County
5. Local
6. Military

Please read up on the panchayat and jirga system to see just what level of primitive understanding and behavior you are trying to educate here.

 

[lightning F57]

Please read up on the panchayat and jirga system to see just what level of primitive understanding and behavior you are trying to educate here.

He was responding to me, are you insinuating I have a primitive understanding and behaviour. I might have a "primitive" understanding on the Jirga system that you mentioned as I am not from Pak or live there but I would like to know how my behaviour is primitive, while your at it define what primitive means in this context. Also whataboutism is a poor way to divert a topic.

You can call it whatever you want. I mean if you found that racist, then you will call it racist, I am just saying on a LEO perspective, this is what Jurisdictional issue mean. You can still call it racist, as much as anything else even after I tried to explain why this happen the way it happens.

There are ALWAYS loophole in law, pistol brace and the entire bankruptcy system in the US are one giant legal loophole, but at the end of the day, Native have had a choice, and they choose this, as I said, you want a separated law from the law of the land, then there are always going to be limitation you need to follow. On the other hand, would it be fair for the other side if the Native can have the cake and eat it? What next then? Should State now able to snoop into Federal Affair and vice versa because now the Native can do it outside their jurisdiction? How about we abolish the entire State v Federal affair next? How about we abolish the entire constitution next because in this perceived "racial injustice" because the Tribal people sign a treaty with the US government back in the 1800s to give up their own right in order to maintain their sovereignty??

I mean isn't that clear? Either we are all Federal Subject and then have the same law applies to each one of us, or we keep our different tier of jurisdiction and each one does not encroach the other within the 6, but you can't applies your own jurisdiction toward others. I mean you can't cry foul when you have exclusive jurisdiction to your people in your land. That would mean you don't have jurisdiction outside of those scope. This is not about racial motivation, this is about fairness and jurisprudence.

We are going around in circles so I will leave it there.

 

[VCheng]

are you insinuating I have a primitive understanding and behaviour.

Not at all. UK does not have a panchayat or jirga (or similar) system. Those who have that system appropriate to their own societal behaviors are the ones that have a primitive understanding of what modern justice systems such as those in the UK do, including the matter of local and higher levels of jurisdiction.

 

[jhungary]

Please read up on the panchayat and jirga system to see just what level of primitive understanding and behavior you are trying to educate here.

Well, I understand his point, because that is a background based (again, wouldn't consider native American a race) system, and as with any system, there are going to be injustice borne out of that system, and since this is background base and not occupational base (a la military jurisdiction) or location base (a la state, federal, county jurisdiction) all type of those issue is going to be arose from those background. Same as those issue coming from military jurisdiction would come from the military and so on.

Problem is, that was the system they choose, again, it's not like the Federal Government had not tried in the past to extend the Federal System to them, and as I said before, why they choose that and not wanting to give up their jurisdiction, which would have been the core of the issue if you want to see it as a racial motivation, I don't know, I am not a Native American activist or a Federal Law historian to have say one way or otherwise, but as I said, that is the system they choose which mean they would have to live with all the issue that come with, same as any other jurisdiction.

 

[gambit]

They'll tell you it's okay since the slaves were originally caught by other africans and not the white people themselves.

I am not even kidding. This is legit the argument I had thrown at me.

No one said it is 'okay' for slavery. But the final target of the slavery issue is %99.999 on US.

So...Is this true...??

 

[villageidiot]

No one said it is 'okay' for slavery. But the final target of the slavery issue is %99.999 on US.

That's what the guy kept implying. It's in one of the threads on the "rectal feeding" made some time ago.

 

[Tom-tom]

Next they will say, Muslims done slavery and it say it in the qu'ran.

First things first , alot of important ppl or people of significance in the qu'ran were slaves.

Islam's intention, was make eventually make slavery unviable. There were guidelines.. basically the slave must similar accommodations to you, food, water e.t.c. they can even have a family e.t.c .... yes they can be disciplined but not harshly.

Our euro's took it to level 5 million into Dante inferno, first they were so busy cramming their ship with so many "goods - slaves" and robbing the world. That on their voyage they forget to pack provisions of food. Eating a few "goods- " along the way.

Also there was a practice, possibly introduced by the Jews, as they owned more slaves than American presidents for a certain amount of time.
It was the introduction of forced breeding, of the slave was of good stock and the female was of good stock. These slaves were tortured and abused till the point they were forced to procreate.
We are talking about sometimes these white euro's forcing African slaves to pro-create with each even if they were immediate family members. This practice was a lot more common they you will know . After all they were goods

 

[VCheng]

Well, I understand his point, because that is a background based (again, wouldn't consider native American a race) system, and as with any system, there are going to be injustice borne out of that system, and since this is background base and not occupational base (a la military jurisdiction) or location base (a la state, federal, county jurisdiction) all type of those issue is going to be arose from those background. Same as those issue coming from military jurisdiction would come from the military and so on.

Problem is, that was the system they choose, again, it's not like the Federal Government had not tried in the past to extend the Federal System to them, and as I said before, why they choose that and not wanting to give up their jurisdiction, which would have been the core of the issue if you want to see it as a racial motivation, I don't know, I am not a Native American activist or a Federal Law historian to have say one way or otherwise, but as I said, that is the system they choose which mean they would have to live with all the issue that come with, same as any other jurisdiction.

Funny how the native Americans are using their own laws to open casinos and earn hundreds of millions of dollars too, sell cigarettes' and gasoline tax-free to maximize their profits, and are themselves not prosecutable on their lands, by local and State authorities but nobody wants to look at that side of the coin here. Let us talk only about the bad side of the legal systems.

No one said it is 'okay' for slavery. But the final target of the slavery issue is %99.999 on US.

Let us not forget the equal trade in slaves off the Eastern costs of Africa into all the lands along the Indian Ocean.

 

[jhungary]

Funny how the native Americans are using their own laws to open casinos and earn hundreds of millions of dollars too, sell cigarettes' and gasoline tax-free to maximize their profits, and are themselves not prosecutable on their lands, by local and State authorities but nobody wants to look at that side of the coin here. Let us talk only about the bad side of the legal systems.



Let us not forget the equal trade in slaves off the Eastern costs of Africa into all the lands along the Indian Ocean.

lol, they don't really care, most of the people talks here probably just try to score a point. I mean, there are always good or bad side of a law, if you only focus on the bad side, it's always going to be bad. As I said, they don't choose to stick to this for no reason, it's not forced upon them, so they are willingly doing this, and which mean they themselves have looked at the pros and cons before they say "Okay, we accept that"

 

[VCheng]

lol, they don't really care, most of the people talks here probably just try to score a point. I mean, there are always good or bad side of a law, if you only focus on the bad side, it's always going to be bad. As I said, they don't choose to stick to this for no reason, it's not forced upon them, so they are willingly doing this, and which mean they themselves have looked at the pros and cons before they say "Okay, we accept that"

Well, that is PDF these days, unfortunately. Just for light reading, read up on how the Osage Native Americans profited from their oil discoveries in Oklahoma and where they are today. Tax-free, of course.

Did You Know?

Since its discovery oil has played a major role in Osage history.

www.osagenation-nsn.gov

 

[gambit]

That's what the guy kept implying. It's in one of the threads on the "rectal feeding" made some time ago.

Or possibly what you think he implied. Nevertheless, assume the graphics in post 49 are true for now. If quantity is an indicator of acceptance and even approval, that means the purveyors of slaves must have believed it was 'okay' to enslave people. African blacks certainly did so believed and we can be sure several African kingdoms profited handsomely from the trafficking of their own kind. The graphics also showed that slavery in North America was a pittance compared to Central and South America. If the US was 'built' from slavery, so were Central and South America. Certainly more so because slavery in North America was stopped at the US Civil War. So why are Africans as a people, and the countries Portugal and Brazil not condemned and demanded reparations?

 

[VCheng]

No one said it is 'okay' for slavery. But the final target of the slavery issue is %99.999 on US.

No one has condoned torture either. It is just that, just like the slavery issue is placed only on USA, all those who actually abducted and tortured their own citizens before handing them over to USA get a pass for obvious biased reasons. In fact, USA then went through due process to actually absolve those persons, And then, the crowning touch is blaming USA for their incarceration when in fact their own countries refuse to accept them back.

 

[Communism]

Now the CIA trolls are saying the only true victims of the African slave trade was the United States as a whole.


Clearly the true victims of racism and the African slave trade can only be Pure Blooded Anglo Saxons of the Revolutionary American kind.


Any claims of other victims are clearly lies.


Reparations must by paid by anyone claiming otherwise, to the Pure Blooded Anglo Saxons of the Revolutionary American kind.


Didn't you know that Freedom from the African slave trade was due to the Pure Blooded Anglo Saxons of the Revolutionary American kind.


If the savage sub-humans didn't have benevolent masters like the Pure Blooded Anglo Saxons, slavery would have never ended!


(Tagged as Sarcasm so the people pretending to be retarded that will inevitably try to blame me for their own racism have one less avenue to do so)

 

[villageidiot]

Or possibly what you think he implied.

I am allowed to think, aren't I?
I've engaged with the guy on a number of other topics before. I know his shtick. So, you'd be wrong to view it from the American lens only. He's a shameless person whose only goal is deride others and

Nevertheless, assume the graphics in post 49 are true for now. If quantity is an indicator of acceptance and even approval, that means the purveyors of slaves must have believed it was 'okay' to enslave people.

Did I imply they are free from blame?

African blacks certainly did so believed and we can be sure several African kingdoms profited handsomely from the trafficking of their own kind. The graphics also showed that slavery in North America was a pittance compared to Central and South America.

"I only raped her once. These other guys had all the fun."
What kind of an argument is that? Also, I was under the impression we can condemn all slavery and the mistreatment of african without going all nationalistic .

If the US was 'built' from slavery, so were Central and South America. Certainly more so because slavery in North America was stopped at the US Civil War.

I never said US was "built" on slavery.

So why are Africans as a people, and the countries Portugal and Brazil not condemned and demanded reparations?

So, you wrote all that to end it on good ol' whataboutery?

I'd say let's stop this conversation here. It's clear we aren't understanding each other.

 

[gambit]

So, you wrote all that to end it on good ol' whataboutery?

Yes, what about Africans, Brazil, and Portugal? They imported and transported more slaves than Americans did. Magnitudes more.

But the reality is that it is not about 'whataboutery'. It is about exposing you to facts and truths you never thought existed. From now on, every time you think of slavery, you will think of how little America had to do with that immorality. Your world has changed slightly for the better. Be glad.

I'd say let's stop this conversation here. It's clear we aren't understanding each other.

Chickenshit.