Owen Ryan a socialist that fell away from his ideologies in later life. He wrote about totalitarianism and warned against it in any form. Read further, think better.
very true, you can tell a lot about a person by the way they write, its a glimpse into the inner workings of their mind... and the strength or lack there of their mental faculties.
@@Melville1800s Haha! Blubbering..If you ever listened to Hitchens, which iam guessing you do because you commented on his video, you would know that that is exactly what he teaches " It's not what you think, it's how you think" so your point is garbage, especially the troll ass way you said it..
@@mja91352 You bring up another example of bad faith argument. Thanks for arguing against something else you yourself set up in order to demean the first thing by association. Great irony and your lack thereof, you demonstrate oh clever one.
I disagree with Hitchens here, reparations for slavery is taking money from people who didn't own slaves and then giving that money to people who werent slaves.
mbbroker79 Haha you've got to be joking right? You want to hold out your hand now and demand reparations from the American people who are of different backgrounds and had Nothing to do with slavery 100 years ago?
You can't force people to change their opinion, but you can educate yourself and present what you learned in a manner that is acceptable to anyone willing to listen without compromising your own principals and beliefs. I'm so grateful to have lived and learned from one of the best teachers this world had to offer.
um.. your a racist....jews were enslaved in history many many times...where is your voice for thier reparations...oh wait... i forgot, you already stated your black and only care about blacks....
Let me help you. His advocacy of the Iraq war is not missed by millions of Iraqis. His serial plagiarism is not missed by numerous authors. There I did it for you!
@@jugheadsrule But is his advocacy of the Iraq war missed LESS than Saddam Hussein himself...or the 3/4 MILLION Iraqi's in whose death or "disappearance" Saddam was directly implicated? By the way, out of curiosity, are YOU an Iraqi, or simply an anti-war activist who presumes to speak on their behalf? As for serial plagiarism, I'd be more than happy to examine any evidence you'd care to present. Either way...See Also: Ad Hominem.
@@OmniphonProductions It can't be ad hominem if it's true can it, you supercilious clown. Saddam was a lame duck by 2003. NFZs had wiped out most of his airforce and air defences so he wasn't a threat to anyone. In any case, the justification for the invasion was that he was connected with 9/11 and that he had WMD. Both provably false. And the result of that invasion? 1million plus dead, the birth of ISIS and the destabilisation of the whole region. As for his serial plagiarism, it's well documented, get off your arse and research it yourself. Here's a starter, and his most well known plagiarism, his book on Thomas Paine had copious amounts lifted from a book on Paine written by John Keene, who has personally acknowledged my publicizing Hitchens copying of his work.
@@jugheadsrule WOW! Defending an ad hominem with another ad hominem. Impressive. In RETROSPECT, you're right that Saddam was not a threat to anyone by 2003. However, his refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors to actually do their jobs...as well as no small amount of sabre rattling and his consistent violation of no fewer than 14 conditions of the Desert Storm Cease Fire Treaty...indicated otherwise AT THE TIME. For that matter, American, British, and French Intelligence agencies all concluded that he DID likely have WMD. I have no choice but to agree that this proved false, but we didn't know that BEFORE going in. Moreover, while Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, that event began a Global War On Terror, and...considering the 3/4 million Iraqis in whose deaths Saddam was directly implicated (complete with mass graves discovered only AFTER the Iraq invasion), his military strikes on Iraqi Kurds in the north, and the billions of U.N. Oil For Food dollars that were diverted to...among other things...building palaces FOR Saddam, the man was (by any objective metric) a terrorist, AND the world is a better place without him. As for the total body count, if groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban hadn't IMPORTED combatants INTO Iraq (from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iran...for starters), it would have been over far sooner with far fewer casualties. That said, the biggest failure of the U.S. in that respect is that nobody ANTICIPATED such importation of enemy combatants DESPITE the events of 9-1-1, and nobody ANTICIPATED the rise of ISIS (or any other terrorist group) to fill the power vacuum left by Saddam's removal. In that respect, you and I actually agree that it was tragically ill-planned, ill-conceived, and not _immediately_ necessary. HOWEVER, as mentioned earlier, we didn't know that BEFOREHAND. As for the plagiarism, thank you for actually providing somewhere to look. Far too many people online would leave it with the rude and unproductive, "Get off your arse and research it yourself." The person MAKING the claim is responsible for providing EVIDENCE. It's not the job of the person HEARING the claim to research whether its true, and in the ABSENCE of such provided evidence, the rational position is NOT to believe the claim. In this case, you have, at least, given me something. Actual links would be better, but anything is better than nothing. With that in mind, what did Keene specifically say about your efforts? ("...personally acknowledged," doesn't tell me much.) P.S. You still haven't answered whether you're Iraqi or not. Call me a racist, but your deep knowledge of Thomas Paine literature leads me to believe you're not.
@@jugheadsrule while I agree with the Iraq pay of your comment (Hitchens himself regretted his backing) is love to see a citation for the second part of your comment
GodlessComedy What happened in the slave trade can never be repaid. "black criminals" well you do have to realize that some grow up in crime. Police would´t dare to cross their territories, school useless, parents useless. You have to give them a perspective or nothing will ever change. Can throw them in prison and pay for the rest of their lives in there. That´s simply less effective than making sure that they get a perspective. The war on drugs ruined a lot of lives. Some black people got into prison for very minor things. And once you are in there... War on drugs created a lot of misery. It also fucked up south america. USA basically did the best thing a criminal could ask for. Making drugs illegal and punished hard makes sure that drug cartels profit the most. And the US citizens paid for it. Did you know the CIA financed, armed and sold information to drug cartels? It´s not a tin hat foil story you can look it up for yourself. War on drugs is as effective as the war on alcohol was. Please read up on it, every interesting. Racism is what hurts your country the most without understanding the circumstances.
GodlessComedy Also what about "white crime" the billions in financial fraud? And political corruption, legal tax evasion tactics created by white politicians?
@@johndallara3257 - all the pro-Hitchens arguments (and Hitchen's himself), *not that you have made any!* .. are subjective and lack essence. What Hitchens is doing to you all (has been doing), is solely for the purpose of selling his books. Hitchens is a conman with a rich vocabulary that can manipulate the minds of people like you (the uneducated and the misinformed). I believe too, Christianity is a fake religion but is the easiest to debunk and that's why Hitchens attacks Christianity all the time, it makes him look good! But trust me when I tell you this, there's hardly any difference between the du mb christians who give money to the Church, and you bu ms who give money to Hitchens (or show support for him) .. this is what I meant when I said _"S T F U,"_ I just wanted to save space & time and being that you all Hitchens fan[atic]s are so _”smart”_ (LOL), I was expecting you gonna understand.
"... to the principles of free inquiry and open debate, that goes up to make a great university..." For his sake I am glad he is not still around to witness the disaster that we are experiencing now.
@@jehjeh37111 Which is precisely why he'd be so effective today. As odious as Trump clearly is, the bigger problem is in the Liberal establishment, over which the Clintons wield so much power. They're the ones directing the identity politics community towards utterly destroying discourse in the Left.
He himself was a political agitator in his years at Oxford. A Marxist no less. I suspect, though we will never know, and I humbly admit my conclusion is speculative (something I note incidentally that you haven’t done), you might have been disappointed with his views on the current campus activism. What irks me most about internet commentators is how righteously they claim to know the thoughts of the dead. We see this everywhere: F1 fans claim to know what Senna would have thought of the current grid, film fans claim to know what Walt Disney would have thought of his company’s current output, and here we see Hitchens fans simply assuming he would have agreed with them no matter what. It’s wrong-headed, and demonstrates the same unthinking fatuousness he is on record as having opposed through his life.
@@hughtubecube You appear very much to assume most Hitchens fans are from the right - attacking so called 'Marxist' agitators on the left. For all Hitchens' contradictions over Iraq and The War Against Terror, he did so from the Trotskyist tradition of opposing the Stalinism of Saddam and a Marxist rejection of Theocratic Islamism. That this lead him into the cul-de-sac of supporting US imperialism is the great shame that he could never admit to. His Neocon admirers tried to own him but he stated many times he'd never been any kind of Conservative, he supported the US as the only successful revolution still standing. It's not enough to simply say Hitchens would have opposed identity politics activism due to his disgust at the Clintons or anything so fatuous. I strongly suspect he would have recognised the religious fervour in SJW puritanism leading to public denunciations without evidence and so on. The fetishization of identity is something Marx would have said allows the bourgeoise to divide and rule. It's built purely upon a perceived level of oppression in contrast to level of privilege - disabled/muslim/black/lesbian vs straight/white/male. Such a politics takes all the struggles and injustices people face, the energy that might be used to fight for a better world, and channels that all away from defeating class structures towards correcting 'privilege'. At this point it's worth noting that your class is abstract which means it can be challenged and dismantled, whereas privilege is inherent to you if you're a straight white male - whether you like it or not. And in this video, Hitchens identifies injustices that can be set right, especially as they continue to hold sway over the globe - while being very clear he opposed the fundamentalist mindset of repaying all debts throughout history - to empty the museums as it were. As he would have put it - it's crucial to understand how to think, not what to think. Hitchens would most likely have eviscerated the Orwellian nightmare of SJW activism and the Kafkaesque campaigns of MeToo/TimesUp. But equally if he were still around I'm sure the lightweights such as Jordan Peterson would not have come to prominence. Peterson wouldn't stand a chance against Hitchens, something he got a taste of while being effortlessly taken apart by Slavoj Zizek recently..
I think dismissing the generalization of his argument about the Parthenon Marbles is not as easy and as he states. Is there really that stark of a difference between classic Greek artifacts and Pharaonic Egyptian ones (or something you might imagine in between)? There are no Pharaonic Egyptians around, but neither are there Ancient Hellenic polis-dwellers, so how can modern Christian Greeks claim that piece justly as their own, but modern Islamic Egyptians respectively can't? In both cases the artifact's meaning is symbolical, not religious anymore, their meaning far from their original context, and there is a difficult case for historic civilizational continuation and claims to heritage. Sure, details can make a crucial difference, but with regards to his argument in general terms they may not at all.
If someone stole your great grandfather's property which had been passed down the generations to more immediate family, you would have a just claim to demand it to be restituted. However if your great grandfather robbed someone else and seized their property and in return that property got taken away by a third party, then that claim becomes a bit weaker, although you are still allowed to make it. While modern day Greeks aren't Hellenistic Greeks, they are still largely their descendants due to the continuous process of shaping Greek society as we know it today. Historical evidence suggests the process was a lot less smooth in Egypt as Arabs were not just conquerors, but also forced the local population to assimilate into their society, through enforced Islamisation, rape, murder, etc. Admittedly, both modern day countries would still like their artifacts returned due to the economic benefits of increased tourism, but ultimately only the Greeks can play the culture card.
In some sense I do understand, but you're dealing with a Ship of Theseus problem here, and everyone's answer varies bases in what they think constitutes a continual identity. In my case, I think both the Greeks and Egyptians should be returned their artifacts- not necessarily because they were taken from the exact same people as those who sculpted the original artworks, but because they were taken from Greeks and Egyptians (1800s) who are arguably the same today. Whether or not they can claim heritage, they can certainly claim lost revenue from tourism and sovereignty over whatever is dug up on their territory.
@@LancesArmorStriking & @Nikola Langov Mhmh, both valid points. Thanks. I wonder how this relates to the question of seized land, and "formal" reasons why and how people in general were dispossessed of somthing, e.g. during a war. I guess, giving some symbolical items back is easier and the sentimental value of having had them lying around in a museum for a few generations weighs much less than settlers' claims to land, which was conquered in an "unjustified" war (obviously a never-ending question in itself), and then been occupied for a similar time. Psychologically, people are loss averse, and in this case having lived on and "owned" land passed down from your grandparents is practically something else, and involves living individuals much more immediately than ownership of some items by a trust or a state or a museum (simply in psychological terms), but I think there is still a problem of distinguishing these things categorically, if we regard lost ownership, potential, revenue etc. in that way. Seems to be a slippery slope.
I think the analogy is rather devoid of logic in its entirety. Some artifact that some state (or state's agent) seized from another culture centuries ago could be returned as restitution. In this case, there would not be collectivized guilt. It would be understood that the entire English ethnic group, for example, was not collectively guilty of stealing the Parthenon Marbles and bringing them to London. They were taken by the English monarchy and brought there. The English may have benefited from it being there, but it was by no inherent collectivized fault of their own that it was there. Taking this example and comparing it to the enslavement of Black Africans by Europeans is filled with a multitude of logical inconsistencies. First, it was not the entire "white society", as Hitchens argued, that is responsible for the slave trade, slavery, racist laws, etc. 98% of European American families did not own slaves, and many among them were not supporters of slavery as an institution. It benefited the wealthy aristocracy almost exclusively. As an institution, it actually hurt poor European immigrants because there was less need for cheap labor as a result of it. Moreover, many European Americans are the descendants of immigrants who came to the U.S. after emancipation. Some came from countries that didn't even partake in colonization or the slave trade, such as Poland. Add on top of this that not all African Americans are descended from freed slaves. Some of their descendants even partook in slavery themselves against their own people in the New World. So at the end of the day, what reparations represents is the notion that ALL European Americans, regardless of their ancestry, are guilty. It is not just "sins of our father," it is sins of our neighbor, our kings, our Congress, of ANYONE who belonged to our racial group who partook in these historical actions. It is a form of transgenerational racialized guilt against those of European descent and transgenerational racialized victimization of those of African descent. That said, how could reparations ever be justly implemented? Just think of the logistics of such an endeavor and how fraught with incompetence and injustice it would be. If using tax dollars, then the African Americans would essentially just be paying themselves reparations. If a racial tax was assessed, it would be a gross and obvious violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, which, ironically, is the amendment which also naturalized freed slaves as American citizens. That is why reparations for slavery can never be just...or legal...in the United States. Hitchens would minimalize and mock my argument as "white whining," but really, there is just simply no logical or justifiable way to implement reparations based on race, even if the idea seems virtuous at face value.
@@googleisskynet7312 Hey, this wasn't really what I was discussing, but I'll just accept your point here. However I have to say, I think you make a bit a categorical error. Reparations in the case of US-American slave descendant or in many other cases, are not intended (by any sane person) as a punishment because of some alleged inherited collective guilt. If this were so your point would be correct, but without rewatching this video, I would say generally such propositions including that of Hitchens' would frame them as a form of affirmative action, to make up for past discrimination, which has implications to this day. I don't want to discuss the intricacies of such policies at all, but I think at least in that regard your point is correct: Ethnic boundaries are blurry and the burden of past wrongs is difficult to quantify and account for not only on an individual level, but on a level of group or "racial identity". Should one attempt it nonetheless, and how? Different questions.
My Irish ancestors came to the u s in the 1840s. If, if. They had food stamps ,subsidised housing and interest free loans i would probably be very wealthy,
@Mikkel The Red. Ah, but did the Irish have to go through slavery, then share cropping, then Jim Crow, all at gun point and threat of lynching, my racist little friend? I'm just kidding, I would never be your friend. I hope no one else is either, because you're a terrible person.
@Erik Mikkelsaar because, as white people, they would have been permitted to do so. To buy property wherever they could afford and participate in business. They were permitted to build an economic base. To be properly educated. They werent just "freed" in rags and told to pull up their bootstraps. But you already knew that. You just chose to ignore it.
that was the weakest argument I've ever seen from him. 95% was fluff (he just mesmerized the audience with his skills of speech and history), and his real answer came down to the US Treasury made money off of it? Really? Glossed over the answer completely.
I think you just put into words the floating mist in my mind that I've been thinking of since I've seen this video. I won't go so far as to say I'm disappointed with his answer as it was, he's human too, but rather- I feel bad for being irritated with his shenanigan.
I think he was asked to defend the opposing argument, by the event organizers, for reparations and this was the best strategy he came up with. I think Hitchens would ultimately agree that there is no way to justly implement the idea and further policy, of reparations. I think he would agree that it is completely unworkable and that any vague and etherial links to "white privilege" (really in-group preference which all human beings can be subject to) are unworkable.
James Brewer that’s not the point!!!!!!!!!! There has been WRONG done to a people of the ABSOLUTE worst kind and continues today. No there fathers aren’t alive but they’re decedents who are DIRECTLY affected by the actions of MANY countries and should be made whole. I mean this isn’t even a hard one. Did you watch the video???!!!! “Was there a rape a theft a wrong done?, can and should it be made whole?” Simple!!!!!!!!! Wtf dude
@@ischar23 Western society is built on the idea of the individual. As soon as you start punishing individuals based on what group you think they belong to every thing would collapse. Do you go to jail if your father steals a car? If you did, damn near everyone would be in prison. The whole innocent until proven guilty idea is out the window also. Plus, in this scenario, it is actually impossible even if you attempted to do it. I'm second generation here, my ancestors were surfs in Europe. Most slaves from West Africa were originally captured and sold by other African's. I'm white, no slaves owned by my family. Many Black people's ancestors were slave traders. Gonna try to figure out everyone's family history to see if they were the guilty or the victims?!? Or just say they are guilty or victims based on skin tone?
The Elgin marbles is a big red herring. The Greeks at the time had no interest in or respect for their history, and had destroyed countless artifacts to make lime, costing the world inestimably dearly in lost knowledge. The Elgin marbles were about to suffer the same fate. They weren't stolen, they were rescued, for all of us. Reparations for slavery is a difficult one for me. The suffering was terrible, but those who experienced it are long dead, as are those who perpetrated it, and the many Africans who enabled it because it wasn't just a white on black thing. And in fact black on white slavery continued until the turn of the 20th century when the barbary pirates were wiped out, so white families from the Mediterranean all the way up to the coast of Britain have slavery in their families right up to the edge of living memory and as such have perhaps an even more legitimate claim. However, I believe that nobody is responsible or should be held accountable for the crimes of their ancestors (even when an individuals ancestors can be proved to have been involved). Nor should a nation be held responsible for events where no participant or victim still lives. If we are to hold people responsible for historic events, how many generations must pass before it becomes silly? I live in the north of England - does that mean, therefore, that I can claim reparations from Denmark for the actions of the Vikings? Or Rome for the invasion of 43ad? We're not even meant to hold Germany responsible for the blitz, a mere 7 decades ago.
They were rescued but they ought to go back. They belong in Athens, somewhere near the Acropolis and the Parthenon, not in a British museum. It is as simple as taking ancient heritage back where it came from and where it belongs The Parthenon is still there, at least partly, and there is a thread of continuity between the ancient and modern world in this case. It is not like ancient Hellas simply disappeared altogether and was miraculously recovered. Reparations for slavery is a far more controversial and impractical concept, obviously.
+Ishmael Forester Yeah I've no argument there, and it would be a nice gesture for archaeologists and historians in both nations to come together with a mutually beneficial compromise, as I think you hinted at in another post. I just felt that the often-implied idea that our ancestors went around essentially raping antiquity is at best misleading and at worst an outright libel that needs challenging.
Evil Twin I don't think they raped antiquity but they certainly raped the present in their day. I don't think anybody intelligent has any illusions about imperialism generally, not just the British, anymore.
No interest in their history? Well, during the battles to take Athens, the Turks were melting down the lead rods holding up the pillars of the Parthenon for bullets. The Greeks were so worried about this they offered the Turks bullets if they would only stop melting down the material. Were there a lot of Greeks who weren't aware of their history? Or perhaps weren't even really Greeks? Sure. However, there were quite a few who did.
No right thinking person believes in or endorses imperialism now, but nobody is responsible for the actions of their ancestors, and anyway you are conflating two seperate and unconnected issues here. Look, the fact is that there isn't a single museum in the world that does not contain items stolen from another culture. If you endorse giving the Elgin Marbles back, then the Met, for example, should give Britain back all the medieval armour that the people did not give them permission to take, or pretty much every museum should return their mummies to Egypt, a country that doesn't have the space or resources to look after them properly (artefacts in Cairo museum are shockingly badly restored and conserved). Or maybe middle eastern artefacts should be returned to Isis, the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We've all seen the respect they have for antiquities.
For me to be for reparations for slavery, someone needs to answer the following questions. Why should I pay for the sins of my ancestors? If I should pay for the sins of my ancestors who were slave owners, why should I not receive credit for my ancestors who fought against slavery? Why should I pay for reparations to those black people who are better off than I am? What about people who are half white and half black such a Barack Obama and Mariah Carey? Should they pay reparations to themselves?
@Omar Savory There are many factors to consider (petersonscottb brought up some of them), however, to consider the Civil Liberties Act of 1888 as a precedent is not correct. This Act gave reparations to SURVIVING Japanese individuals affected, not their descendants.
@Omar Savory Nowhere did I mention statute of limitations. Also, to equate inheritance with reparations shows ignorance on your part. Due to the logistics involved with distributing wealth to those affected by slavery, it will never happen. The best thing would be to do something similar to what you mentioned, Georgetown. Handing out money to the affected masses will only serve to lower their socioeconomic status even further. Thus, the best action would be to provide financial support to higher education, or perhaps even a lower interest rate on business loans. Increasing the education level of the masses affected, will have the result of increasing their socioeconomic level in the long run. It's not that I disagree with helping those affected, but just handing out lump sums of money is illogical. But, and this is a very big "but", how do you propose determining who can receive the financial support?
@Omar Savory Okay, but how would you suggest going about determining who gets what? If you decide to use DNA to exclude those that don't meet a "minimum threshold", you are going to open up Pandora's box, regarding unsolved crimes. So, again, what would you use to determine eligibility?
@Omar Savory I'd prefer that we work towards a nation that doesn't need reparations because there is no longer such a great inequality that they are needed.
@Omar Savory You have data that proves we shouldn't work towards a more equal society? I'll take a look at that, because if you think just giving some people some money is going to fix anything then you're nuts.
If the English Navy protected the Atlantic Slave Trade shouldn't they also be liable to pay Reparations? Tell me instead about the great slave revolt and how they earned their freedom, OH wait that never happened. Instead, 350,000 whites gave their lives to win their freedom. That sounds like reparation enough.
You can't say that, it goes against the liberal dogma and you will be hunted down and silenced for having an opposing opinion and thinking for yourself.
Those lives given were not to free the slaves, but to keep the Union intact. And I’m guessing you also don’t know or care to know, about all of the other injustices blacks were subjugated to after those lives were “given” and well up to today as well. Pick up a book and learn history before you shoot off at the mouth.
I'm sure that you care little about the lives given to free slaves and would rather dwell on the evils of the whites but the fact remains that the freedom of the slaves was a direct result of the civil war and the men and women (mostly white) who died. I've studied my history perhaps you should as well before you shoot off your mouth.
One thing you must take away from this if nothing else is the difference in the college/university students who are listening quietly and possibly respectfully while Christopher speaks. What a difference in the habits of the students now. 14-15 years later and they now chant and protest and hurl abuse and disrupt speakers they don't want to listen to. All this in less than 15 years!
@@lawsonj39 You should watch more videos and Ben Shapiro, Milo, Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens, Dinesh D'Souza, etc. etc., always seem to have hecklers/protesters in their speaking engagements. Except for one which was done just recently by Ben where I didn't hear a single shout which was really a surprise.
@@hughtorrance8819 i think this is largely because he is taking a far left position right now. If he were taking a far right position there would be more resistance.
@@hannibalthe1st565 You could be right, I just think it's because the college/universities haven't started the far left sh*t they're doing now. A wonderful and horrifying example of this is a college professor who said the Steven Crowder was abusing him and this professor went off the deep end threatened Crowder via tweets and Crowder confronted him in the classroom where the professor got mightily embarrassed and ran away to the Dean's office for protection. The Dean of course, supported the professor despite all the evidence against him and in a follow up program Crowder was showing the tweets that the nut bag professor was sending to the college - very strange. This is what I mean about the time difference. Look what's happened at Berkeley in 2017 with the Antifa/student riot about Milo speaking - they went nuts and I just can't imagine the students in this video doing that.
I think reparations should take the reverse form of Lee Atwater's southern strategy. If we propose to help everyone who suffers from a legacy of poverty, if that helps minorities such as blacks more, then so be it. There is so much injustice in US history, and I think the proof is in the soaring poverty rates of minorities. We need to provide them with opportunities to advance their social class, and do it under the rubric of lifting everyone out of poverty.
reparations make no sense for these reasons: 1. no one who was subjected to slavery is alive 2. not all black people descended from slaves 3. not all white people descended from slave owners 4. there were black slave owners (though very few) you can't lift anyone out of poverty by giving them handouts. there are more poor white people than black people in America, so why should the black people get help and not the white people? if you want to help, just help those who need help, don't pick and choose based on race, that's racism.
@@Atamanxxxvii Are you going to deny colonialism from the major western powers, England, France, Spain, Portugal, and others? Because that's where you get spanked, Skippy.
and, of course, reparations from the state that oversaw the transportation/importation of slaves, oversaw the slave markets, granted license for slave ownership, policed the slaves, hunted down those who escaped, etc. and, of course, to the slave and their estates. and, of course, from the state to those who suffered under the such state provisions that continued slavery via imprisonment. ... and Jim Crow laws, etc.
England should also pay reparations to the United States for 1776 and 1812. While were at it, I'm part Polish, so Germany should give me stuff. There was an "original, traceable offense" and while the situation can't be fully repaired, let's not make "the best the enemy of the good." Give me what you can Germany.
@@baddog6003 >not realizing islam at one point conquered half of europe and all of northern and eastern africa. >not surprised at all basically what I'm saying is, if we had left them alone they'd probably be equal in terms of societal and economic development. Oh and they would all be arab more than likely. perhaps spreading so far that we were too
"Torrent of bad faith...lolllll "when people begin to introduce the irrelevant the non sequitur and the generalizations .. you can tell you're onto something". Lollll the Hitch
When he said that all I could think of was some of the bad rationalizations in the youtube comments. I've read a few times what about the Arabs who practiced slavery in the same time period.
@@writerconsidered Hmm. Arabs have practised slavery since Sumerian times, as have many, if not most others. Slavery of one sort or another is still widely practised today. During the times that the American slave trade was going, Arabs, Europeans and other African tribes participated.
I don't think that people who are being collectively assigned the guilt of historical events based on their race can be automatically dismissed as bad faith actors. Hitchens is basically just dismissing all arguments which attempt to contextualize the absurdity and injustice of the notion of transgenerational race-based reparations which I think is intellectually dishonest at best, and plainly malevolent at worst.
Jeff Thompson I can only imagine what he'd have to say about the left in its current state at the moment. And, I agree... one of the most intelligent, articulate and outspoken defenders of TRUE liberalism. Have you heard Douglas Murray? He's not Hitchens but he's not bad, either.
I'm overwhelmed with admiration for this man. His tact, his poise, his candor and honesty. His incredible eloquence, and here his piercing cognizance of an important issue that is often mistreated by the ignorant and biased. I would commend his consistency, but I've less respect for consistency after reading Emmerson's Self Reliance. I've never before felt in my life that person was gone too soon. My eternal admiration and respect to you Hitch!
@Miki sadly hitch just got awakened to the fact that life was eternal, that he was wrong about God and misled many, all is not over for him as he will know no rest that’s very sad 😔. Should one respect and admire a lost sinner who confused many and stood on the throne of life denying his creator, well no, one should empathise for one that is so lost and deceived and who sadly apart from a deathbed conversion perished in his sins and trespasses, hardly something to celebrate.
robert marshall nah hitchens was right. Because of him I regained my senses regarding superstition and the harm that a bad metaphysic (such as a belief in the eternal under the guise of a mind) can do. Youre incontrovertibly incorrect about Hitchens and its a damn shame you dont have the senses to see otherwise. This is just backhanded nonsense. Keep your religion to yourself. It’s foolish as was as pretentious and senseless.
@@captur69 I was presumptuously projecting through the medium of Imagination. I've seen so many admirers of Hitchens wishing him "RIP" and I'm momentarily apoplectic at the meaninglessness to an Atheist. He's not "resting" - owing to a sudden attack of death. Hitchens' wisdom was imparted universally and The Planet was better for him.
I can see his argument. But to my defense I say I wasn't here during the time of slavery in this country. My ancestors weren't here either they were starving in Ireland and being persecuted by the crown. You see a bill is due but who is to say who rightly owes the back wages..
I struggle with that as well, but I think the answer would have to be we as a nation. We as the United States permitted the practice and as a result, millions of Americans were never paid for their labor.
@@TheRealColt45 you live in the most prosperous nation the earth has ever seen that's your reward for your ancestors suffering, every country and civilisation on earth had slavery why would America be the ones to pay?. More Europeans were taken by the barbary slavers than african slaves were taken to the American colonies. Cuba had twice as many African slaves as America. The Vikings enslaved lots of Irish and Scottish approximately 62% of the Icelandic maternal gene pool is derived from Ireland and Scotland. People from Scandinavia do not owe us Irish and Scots anything. During the height of the Irish famine where millions starved to death grain was stolen from Ireland by the Crown and sold to the American colonies Neither the British or the American colonies who benefitted owe Irish people anything today. Everyone could stake a claim that they are owed something butt that's not how the world works we are not on the hook for something our ancestors did or didnt do
Have to disagree with Hitch here. There's a reason it was called the slave trade and not the slave theft. It's not like the slave traders were hunting down Africans and snatching them up. It would be one thing if that was the case, but the way it happened is that African warlords and chieftains rounded up their subjects and sold them to slave traders for rum. The slave traders were buying slaves, yes, but the African chieftains were selling them. So let's not act like white Americans (many of whom have zero slaveowners in their ancestry) are entirely responsible for slavery in North America.
Yeah how dare white people "whine" when somebody wants to confiscate parts of their wealth solely for being white? Truly shocking display of immature "whiners".
I disagree with Hitch's rationale in that the reference to the Elgin Marbles would only be comparable if the nations of Africa wanted the decendants of it's stolen people back. This was a very poor position to take. I can't see how he could convolute "Reparation" with "Repatriation".
@Camille Desmoulins Completely irrelevant to the issue at hand and also quite wrong. Whatever the austerity policy imposed by the European Stability Mechanism--or Germany, if you can't do without your own personal Antichrist--foreclosing on art is not how national debt is collected. Nice try at a segue though. @Michael Gaspar I agree with the part about Hitchens' conflation of "reparation"/"repatriation", but I think his injunction to not "make the best the enemy of the good" still holds. As far as reparation is concerned, the once-promised forty acres and a mule (or their modern-day value equivalent) might be a good start, since this would have been wealth passed down in the families of former slaves. After all, there are 640 million acres of federal land in the US.
My ancestors came from Norway, and some joined the Union Army straight away. So, what of that? I have one that died while serving. So, who owes here? How do people who have no ancestors that were slaves deserve reparations?
robert vernon what, not wanting to pay for something to some one else for no good reason? How about reparations for my ancestors dying..? If your ancestors werent slaves? No reps. That would take care of a good majority of it.
My earliest Ancestors in My home country of Australia were sent here against their will as Irish Convict slaves. Do I deserve Reparations or does the colour of my skin make me not eligible?
@AridMy oldest ancestor was sent here for the charge of " uttering unholy oaths" meaning he was suspected of belonging to an organisation sworn to resist and oppose British rule in Ireland. (eg like the ribbon men) If membership could be proven death was the sentence. For Suspected resistors confiscation of property, Transportation, whipping and slavery was dished out by the English. He would have hated the British Empire as much as any Indigenous Australian ever has.
Arid Ned Kelly's father was sent half way round the world to break rocks in the scorching sun because he stole pigs to feed his family, so you think he deserved it because he was a criminal or is it because he was white?(hint: it's the latter)
Some people in the comment section are just ridiculous. Can you not see the clear gap between blacks and the rest of america? The living conditions and treatment of black people in america by the system obviously shows that. Stats don't lie. It was this same system that had slaves and benefited from the free labour that has created this massive gap and still continuous to widen the gap. Clearly something has to be done to fix it.
socraytes Maybe investing more into these communities. Developing better systems of education? I don't know I'm no politician but something better than what the government is doing right now
Yomamas Nekst As a nation we pay more now into education now than we've ever paid in the history of the United States yet we're falling further and further down the rankings. Explain how the federal government funding education is helping? As for the communities how can communities thrive when crime is such that business don't want to go into those communities for fear of going under. You can't just dump money on the problem but again if you could who would pay and what would they pay?
socraytes Crime is an economic symptom. On a large scale you cannot distinguish between those. In general though the west has gone so far in the wrong direction with the triumph of neo-liberalism in the last 30 years that its not just Blacks that are being stiffed, its everyone in the middle class and the working class. So the whole damned thing is going in the wrong direction so its no surprise that Blacks aren't getting miraculously saved by a system that can't even keep formerly privileged white people from suffering. Also, spending money isn't a magic barometer. Its how that money is spent thats the issue, and the policies that go with it. All this standardized testing nonsense that keeps coming up is a lot of money spent on something that doesn't improve anything.
Yomamas Nekst I have a novel idea on how to fix it. How about the blacks in America get an education and a job, marry and raise families, care for their young, eschew the life of crime and drugs and thuggery, and see how that works.
Not his best moment, by far. Comparing the Atlantic slave trade to the acquisition of the Elgin marbles is so ridiculous as to be insulting. Also, his statement that there is scarcely stone upon stone in Washington, D.C. that was not put there by slaves shows a sad ignorance of the history of the city in which he certainly spent a fair amount of time. Maybe one can make a good argument to reparations, but Hitchens hasn't made one here.
@@phaedrussocrates7636 To paraphrase Hitchens himself @ 3:13, when people start responding to your argument by calling you a 'shiteater', you know you're on to something.
This is the first time I've heard Hitch make absolutely no sense whatsoever. He's not even addressing the two basic questions: who pays and who gets paid?
Perhaps other speakers ventured into these areas but a few observations: 1. Mr. Hitchens claims the US should pay reparations for slavery but does not mention England should even though England started the practice in the US as early as 1619. The US was born into this practice and couldn't change things overnight. Yet, not a word about this aspect. 2. He frames the subject in ways that avoid important questions. For example, slavery was a legal practice. If it had been an illegal practice it would have been much smaller in scale. What precedent do you set if you punish people for doing something that was legal simply based on changing moral grounds? In addition, we have a practice in the West of not punishing the son for the sin's of the father or in this case the sins of the great grandfather being pushed on the great grandson. Except that doesn't even have it right because modern Americans have varying ancestry so only a percentage of their ancestry may have any tie to slavery if at all. This is all major departure from typical criminal and civil law so we would be creating a new precedent. 3. He ignores that genetic and/or other environmental factors are contributing to the existing divide rather than past issues with slavery. 4. Perhaps the biggest question avoided is will reparations actually heal the divide or will it widen it? Because if it becomes a practice it will create a lot of resentment and there will be repercussions that may be worse than the issue thought to be solved.
Native Americans were screwed the most because the Europeans came in and took their land and their culture. So with this where does it end? Reparations is a dumb and dangerous idea.
@@charlesgradle286 *"1. Mr. Hitchens claims the US should pay reparations for slavery but does not mention England should even though England started the practice in the US as early as 1619. The US was born into this practice and couldn't change things overnight. Yet, not a word about this aspect."* Probably because the number of slaves owned in English colonies in the US was tiny, and also because the English didn't have slavery IN ENGLAND. It was something only done in the American colonies, and mostly in the Caribbean. So, why would England today be responsible for what American colonists did, especially after they gained independence from Britain before the slave trade even became as big as it was? Secondly, the British already paid reparations for the slave trade. It took them 200 years, but the British tax-payer paid off the cost of abolition. I agree with everything else you wrote.
@@charlesgradle286 naTive Americans already receive reparations. So do Jewish Peoples and japaneese..this is not something that hasn't or isn't being done .it is okay for everyone else but dumb for black desendants of slavery..
Charles Gradle There were only about 10 million Natives in America when Columbus arrived. They didn't claim the whole continent as theirs so very little of their land was stolen. The reason they were put in reservations is because they savagely killed innocent men, women and children who settled on land the Natives didn't claim.
This where the collective mindset is most destructive. You cannot assign an individual responsibility for anything that happened before he was born. You just simply can't, it contradicts reality in every way. Yet you wish to hold an entire society responsible for what happened before any of its individual members were born? When does this magical assignment of responsibility take place? When did I become responsible for slavery? When I was born? That's as absurd as saying I was born with Original Sin.
ampman76 well, by being born we are all the spawn of those who have sinned. By our very existence we show that our forefathers survived likely at the cost of others. But back to you original point, it is not that the forefathers of westerners sinned that gives this argument voice, it is the fact that ONLY westerners understand and continually apologize for the actions of those who came before that gives these arguments power. The Japanese do not appologize for the murders and rapes committed during WW2 because they know that those who committed those acts are long dead, though many Chinese still hold Ill will towards them. However they do not often attack, demand repentance or reperations from the Japanese, last I checked. To put it simply, if everyone achknowledged the past but did not allow for it to stain them, then we wouldn't see people taking advantage of this guilt that seemingly only westerners have for the sins of their ancestors. Of course, when you look at other cultures and people, even some Japanese, who try to hide or discredit the historic atrocities, it's no shock why. The only man guilty in the eyes of all around, is the one who confesses to his past crimes, whether "he" committed them or not.
Well said LifeLine, the Barbary and Ottoman slave trades were far more horrific than the Atlantic slave trade conducted by Europeans, but Europeans are the only ones who are targeted for 'reparations', precisely because we are too empathetic. I'd love to see Turkey's response to 'reparation' demands.
LondonSpade, I think Europeans are targeted because they have money and power (which Turkey does not). Also, the CULTural marxist/Frankfurt School of thought makes White Europeans (and thus White America) the total evil in the world, who must atone for everything ever done, regardless of who else was doing it across the globe.
Why would anyone forfeit their advantage or inheritance if they didn't feel responsible? On the contrary, if you feel you're the benefit of illicit privilege, feel free to give up your inheritance.
Amateras Uchiha How so? Makes perfect sense to me... wait, no not quite; everyone supposedly is born with original sin because of Eve, yet not every white person descends from a slave trader or owner. Total white guilt bullshit. 3% of white Americans owned slaves, and my ancestors did not take part. If I owe a penny for reparations, it will have to come out of whatever I get back from the african invasions of Italy Fuck off
I don’t know if the present and future would be the same if he hadn’t already been here. A truly brilliant mind, and I agree with the heart of your statement, we need him now more than ever
Instead of paying repirations to blacks,why dont they use that money to build great schools in poor areas and educate all the poor how to help themselves
Typical white supremacist they believe that black reparations should be passed out to all poor people something they would never say to a Jewish Holocaust victims. Fool, you did not enslave poor people you enslaved black people.
The Devil is in the details. How do you calculate how much each victim class member was harmed in terms of dollars and how much each individual oppressor class member is culpable and how much he must pay.
Moreover, which members are actually within the oppressor class and which were the victims. West Africans captured and sold the majority of the slaves that ended up in America. Gonna do Ancestry DNA to try and figure out if you came from one of the people that got captured or one of them that did the capturing? Or what if your mother's side was black slave trader, but your Dads side was a slave? what the hell you gonna do them? Or are we just going by how much melanin you've got and whites with ancestors who were surfs or another oppressed people that came to North America have gotta pay also? And on and on it goes.
Did Hitch say the reparations have to actually be monetary? He does talk about the Federal Reserve and America's wealth but I don't believe he ever actually mentioned actual money. I think he is making a far more important point. One that still needs to be made and we need to be reminded of every time a Black person is killed unjustly by cops, every time a Black person is profiled by White civilians, every time a Black person is given a harsh punishment disproportionate to the crime they committed. Yes perhaps some money is in order but the question goes far deeper than mere money.
I accept neither collective guilt nor hereditary guilt. No American living today has owned or been a slave. There is no victim and no guilt. No debt exists. Force a redistribution of wealth based on ethnicity will doom ethnic reconciliation.
Why don't the people who feel reparations are in order, set up a fund, let all those with guilt donate, and then mete-out the proceeds to those who feel they deserve it? This would leave-out those of us who had not a thing to do with slavery alone, and maybe we could finally shut-up the element that has haunted us.
None of us had anything to do with the slavery of centuries past. But many of us have benefited from it nonetheless. And as the speaker points out at 8:25, some of the profits of slavery are now held by public institutions.
only 1 in 10 in south owned slaves. Most of them owned only one. Thats 5% in all of the US then. Of the people alive today only 5% can trace themselves back to pre 1860s America, most have come from immigrants that came after that. so 5% of 5% which means there is almost nobody here who owes anybody anything.
To who exactly? The reason there isn't a huge underclass of descendants of the arab slave trade is because they castrated the males and took the women as concubines.
@@hogwashsentinel You're wrong about all male slaves being castrated. Some weren't because those who were sometimes died. In 2010, about 100 baby boys died in the USA from a botched circumcision, a much less invasive procedure than a castration. An early sex change operation was done because of a botched circumcision.
Hitch begins by saying he is going to make an argument by analogy and proceeds to relate some arguments for and against returning the Elgin Marbles. But he then goes on to repeatedly dismisses his opponents’ analogies with respect to the Marbles and reparations as efforts at distraction that reveal their bad faith. I always enjoy listening to him but this is just sophistry.
Hitchens, as always, makes an eloquent case that no one with a shred of moral sensibility could argue with. Certainly I do not know anyone who would disagree, let alone be able to contradict the question of whether reparations should be paid. The difficulty lies entirely within the realm of *HOW*, and I am quite disappointed to see that was not even remotely addressed in this talk.
Hitch is wrong. He argued there is no longer a Babylon, yet there are contemporary people in Iraq that have a claim. Just because the name we call people, i.e. Babylonian vs citizens of Iraq, doesn't mean the people stop existing. With this said, where do we draw the line for reparations. Should we make the modern Italians, who clearly banked their exploitive nature into capital as Romans, assume some financial responsibility to the many peoples they aggrieved? It is one thing to realize a wrong, like the seizure of property, and try to correct it. It is another to place atonement on things as intangible as past profits.
Lol , Ya, its "intangible " because we choose for it to be. Obviously there's not a dollar amount that can make up for what was done. But you certainly can ( & people have ) put an approximate figure on what dollar amount would be owed for centuries of free labor. In modern dollars we'd be talking about almost 2 trillion dollars . We are really good as Americans at figuring out shit we WANT to do. "If you can put a man on the moon".
Are you serious? Look just because I kinda look like someone that allegedly did some past crime doesn't make me accountable. This is an immoral place to begin your argument, because the presumption is racially motivated.
I'm sure a line can be drawn somewhere. But I'm sorry my friend, we dont have to go back but 55 years to find total atrocity in this country in regards to African Americans. We're NOT talking about 2000 years ago. We're talking just 150 years for slavery & not until 1965 did Jim Crow,blatant discrimination, lynching ,inability to vote & real estate red lining begin to subside. That's just 50 year. Hitch knows his history & how we're just a generation away ( my father lived under Jim Crow as a boy....& my 101 year old grandmother was born in the deep south 1914)from many horrendous wrongs.
John Smith The whole country was built upon a foundation of "Race" John. There's no way to address the problem WITHOUT the subject being at the center of the conversation. You can blame our country for that one. Slavery & the 100 years of Jim Crow , lynching & real estate red lining, was all based SOLELY on "race". The people who were hugely affected by it ,we're African Americans. Don't know how you address the issue without addressing race. That's nonsensical. It's racist NOT to discuss. Because you're basically saying we should forget all the iniquities that still exist because of that history. Silly.
The African slave trader tribes should also be sued for all of the people they enslaved and sold like cattle. This idea of reparations is highly impractical and divisive and is a road the USA should never go down.
I understand your logic on this on its face, but ultimately that’s an extension of hypothetical reparations that could never be enforced. I still think it would be better to do something rather than nothing. Just because the US can’t ever fully reclaim all that was stolen from those enslaved doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try.
Rufus Chucklebutty it’s more about the wave of economic and social damage that had been done by Jim Crow, slavery, ect.. All people of color have been affected by these things. Couldn’t get jobs, buy homes ect..
Your question implies that the only blacks who have suffered in america did so as slaves, when I'd argue that slavery was just the initial injury (Jim Crow, etc.) and more importantly that damage is still being done to this day (the ridiculously high numbers of African Americans incarcerated in this country, etc.) and thus the reasonableness of reparations to that race of humans.
@@kingirisnetwork9847 , but how is throwing money at the problem going to solve it. Wouldn't a better solution be for the black community to first gain self responsibility for the crime that exists in their neighborhood?
I generally agree with Hitch, but not on this one. He is absolutely right that there were horrible atrocities done to slaves and many civilizations in the past, and maybe we could do something to assist those today that were affected. But consider this, my family came from Germany over 50 years after the end of the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation and lived in extreme poverty. Am I supposed to pay for something I, nor any of my family, past or present had anything to do with just because of the color of my skin? How do we begin to separate who deserves to be paid and who should be paying?
Exactly. My parents lived soviet Azerbaijan also in extreme poverty. Now they are lower-middle class American citizens. Why should we be penalized for this.
Rachel Goettling but you'd like to reap the benefits of a country built from slavery before you're family got here??? sounds a bit like free loading is it not?
Hitchens avoids the real issues by never defining what he means by "reparations." Is it a one time check? improved access to college? scholarships?, or whatever. As he uses it, "reparations " is a vague, feel good word which means whatever you want it to mean.
@@brianwrynn3109 Can't have an honest discussion about what reparations might look like until the first step, agreeing that a good faith effort should be attempted, is taken. And the counter that if one doesn't already know what that effort should be, so therefore we shouldn't even try, is not a good faith argument. It's very often disingenuous - the person usually is just against the idea at all but won't say so.
@@mukorgalaxies7766 I guess reparations for those who dont wish to be here can be argued for. Restorative justice before any ADOS forfeit their citizenship and leave for a more accommodating country.
I find myself agreeing with Hitchens on every occasion except twice. 1. when he said women cant be funny and 2. now. Reparations were paid in blood when North and South fought a disastrous war were thousands upon thousands were killed.
@@advancedchiropractic667 Isn't there some irony here (if you think he belongs in hell)? An atheist is proposing a very Christian act. It may be as simple as acknowledging the accurate history.
and yet another fuktard religious idiot trying topush their shit on others.. even after they are dead... you should be ashamed of yourself but with your delusions youll never grap that fact..@@advancedchiropractic667
@@advancedchiropractic667 the lowest pit of hell is reserved for people who lead astray the Lord's children... He's certainly getting bent over by Satan right now
No, because I wasn't involved in slavery and my ancestors didn't own slaves. Forcing me to pay for reparations simply because of some vague gamble that I'm "benefiting" from it now has about as much weight as me arguing that everyone else including blacks have benefited from slavery as well. It should also be said that black people also owned slaves in the US. A lot of them too. And quite frankly, as far as I'm concerned no, white civilization does not owe anyone a damn thing. The nature of competition insures that what is won is kept. Dinesh D'souza makes a million times more of a better argument than him. It is not non-sequitur to bring up the injustices of other races. It is not non-sequitur to bring up the injustices whole-sale committed and ask "what about them?" It's a rug-sweeping maneuver to imply that other injustices cannot be brought up when talking about reparations for slavery, because why are black african slaves the only ones to be considered for reparations? Was it not the Native Americans that both black and white stole land and killed for resources? Was it not the Native Americans who were originally enslaved first in this continent? So why must we then only consider the black population, who, by Hitchens own argument, are less deserving of Reparations when more was stolen and taken from the Native Americans? He has a pompous morale justification, but only from his own understanding of morales, not any actual sense of fairness or education. He sits on a podium that lays atop the graves of millions of not blacks, but Native Americans, which if it were not for them and their land that we had taken, this country would not even exist. So to this I say, no. We cannot and should not try to fix or mend the past. The past is what it is, the best we can do is do away with the constraints that hold individuals back, which as it certainly stands, we've done more than enough of.
Atheos B. Sapien I think you're an idiot that wasn't paying attention to what I said. I said it wasn't a non-sequitur to bring that up, and hitchens says it is, which I am saying that hitchens is saying that in order to "sweep under the rug" the fact that there are legitimate holes in his logic which he's choosing to ignore simply because of the inconvenient truth that injustices have occurred to all people all over the world. Try paying attention.
Fortunate to have learned English to the point of understanding Hitchens. So miss you Professor Hitchens. Simply Succulent. I pay attention When he speaks.
@ Just common sense. People who are bad with money will eventually end up separated from their money, People who are industrious will always rise to the top. What do you think poor black people would do with a bunch of government cash?
@@pashadyne Well if you want to make up for bringing slaves to America you can't forget that you also stole the whole country from the native Americans that were already here so you need to make amends to those people as well... the only way to do that is get out of the country and go back to europe or where ever your ancestors came from.
@@pashadyne The reality is even if you gave every black in America a million dollars, the over whelming majority would be back on welfare within 2 years. The black culture is not one that puts value on anything sustainable and is the reason the blacks have been at the bottom of the barrel for generations. Until it changes and pushes education over athletics they will forever be a doomed people. Simply consider how many black families push basketball or football as the best chance for their kid to make it out of poverty.... and how many real support stars do you get out of any given year, these families are playing the same odds as the lottery with their kid's future is it any wonder they tend to be uneducated losers?
Reparations are a terrible idea. Think of the level of scrutiny of people’s history required to properly distribute reparatory money properly. The records of history wouldn’t be adequate for the average joe. So, you’d have to have a blanket policy, such as all black Americans receive reparations. But then what of the blacks who’s recent ancestry does not involve slavery, what of the blacks descended from those that themselves sold slaves-what are they owed? What of mixed race Americans descended from slave trader heritage, what of blacks like Oprah Winfrey, who are a hundred thousand times more successful than the average white? Morally, there is a case to be made, but sadly there is no practical way that this could be implemented fairly.
@Tom Voke I left a comment regarding reparations on a video regarding reparations. I am saying that morally, as Hitchens argued, there is a good case to be made that descendants of slaves deserve reparations. However, there is no way to implement this fairly. That is my point. If I can't leave that comment on this video then I'm not sure where I could leave it. And regarding whether or not I'm 'obsessed' (after one instance, you may want to look that word's definition up) with your comment likes. It was merely a passing comment. It's amusing how when you post a comment it immediately has 1 like, yet none thereafter. You must have one very dedicated fan!
It's weird I always hear so much about how great this guy was but I don't think I've fully agreed with a single argument he's ever made. Yet I enjoy watching him make them.
The best way to repair the damage from slavery is to ensure nobody can be a slave ever, and that everyone is treated the same under the law without protected groups. Anything else is just band aids.
There are more slaves today than 100 years ago Its just that no one cares because they are not in western countries People think the west is evil, and they only really virtue signal when the west does something And that is because in western democracy they have been given freedom to virtue signal its almost like self loathing
Elgin's Marbles are a non sequitur - and he complains about his opinion on them being subjected to non sequiturs. He also says when people stoop to such tactics, then you're on to something. His entire argument is emotional - and he comments about those who satisfy themselves with emotion.
He is using it as an example to juxtapose wrongs that can easily and entirely be made right, and those wrongs that cannot be made right, at least not completely.
Would the African tribes, like the Zulus, Watusi and others, who had slaves of their own and sold those they didn't want to keep to the slave traders, also pay reparations? North and South American Indians also made slaves of the captives they did not torture to death. Many tribes also practiced human sacrifice. Sometimes a hundred or more young virgins were killed during a 3 day celebration. FYI...Wars for booty, slaves, religion and territorial gain were also common the tribes in North, Central and South America. Perhaps someone could define the moral high-ground?
Propaganda Richard Schaefer, the winners of wars and choreographers of colonialism write false narratives for the conquered. That's typical when lands are stolen, so future generations and descendants remain passive and unaware of their true histories.
@@ericwright2763 And "true" history is what exactly? "Conquest" and "stolen" is an exercise of semantic nonsense. All have a right to self defense and preservation. The inability to repel conquest is not a moral argument. The denial of self defense, through legislation is.
@@ericwright2763 REALLY? So you're saying that LONG before ANY white person stepped foot in their Continent, the Africans, North and South American Indians, Mongols, Persians, Romans, Egyptians, et al, were NOT taking each other and conquered others into slavery? Thousands of years before. YOU really need to research World history. Since the beginning of mankind, "to the victor goes the spoils" was common practice and us "white folks" aka Americans, didn't invent it, we ended it.
@@joeashbubemma Please tell me what culture, in history, refused to defend themselves through legislation? IMO, the conquered DID try to defend themselves, the conquerors were simply superior and that's true from massive armies and superior weapons and tactics, to small hordes of berserker Vikings, down to small Indian raid parties.
The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. Do they get reparations too?
also: do the slave trading nations need to pay reparations? The Dutch, Portuguese, English, etc? How about the African nations that supplied these slaves?
Hunter Brady lmbao at the irish as slaves. The irish were indentured servants they werent slaves. Who did they enslaved after their indentured servitude and forced to work the land they got aftr their indentured servitude?
A strong man can become a victim but it is the weakest man that can try to claim victimhood without fear of persecution. Meaning if you're really a victim, you wouldn't be able to whine and cry about it. If you're strong and independent, you would not be whining and crying about being a victim.
In order for a fight to stop and peace to ensue, one has to be okay with being hit last, and the other live with being the one who hit last, or the fight will simply never cease.
Yes, and when victory is won, it is crucial that the victor declares victory and ends the war. If you win, but continue waging war, you will either begin the process of genocide, or provoke the other side to return to the war. Neither is good. It shows that peace and equality are not the prize, but domination, and utter destruction.
There are no pharaonic Egyptians? But there are classical-era Greeks? Even if you dismiss Egypt's Muslim Arab majority as having broken continuity with their ancient ancestors, the country's significant Coptic minority are unarguably the carriers of their country's ancient culture. Every bit as much as the Greek Christians of today are of their own country's legacy. This is really a terrible analogy, especially coming from Hitchens.
Jacob Hoss Modern Greeks at least speak a similar language to ancient Greeks. They have in way or another had continuity in the the same geographical locations. The pharaohs ruled over many millenia (some pharaohs were Nubians) and different groups have ruled this part of the world and leaving their legacy, including the Greeks. Modern Egyptians speak Arabic and identify more with Arabs from Arabia in terms of what they hold dear and important. Greeks on the other hand still identify with the ancient kingdoms.
It is a needless argument too. The Rosetta Stone is not a stolen portion of a work of art. Its historical significance isn't even innate - it's only interesting due to the fact that it permitted the translation of hieroglyphics. Its relevance to the modern population of Egypt is no greater than its relevance to anyone else - regardless of how many Coptics or Pharaohs still live.
having said that I'd argue he was suggesting was taking a chunk of money from the treasury and distributing it (to African American people who were descendants of slaves)
@@georgebyrne3825 i get that argument, but what about the 99% who never owned a slave? is taking their money away a righteous act? In my mind, compensation to long lost ancestors is too far, welcoming them fully into society allowing them to play by the same rules is justification enough... Allowing them to buy cheap government land might be a good step however...
There is one thing ,I observe, which is the statement that these ' so' unfortunate soles were wrenched from some sort of Utopian freedom to an indeterminate slavery... Stop.! These peoples were no more free than were captives taken in their incessant wars working in their own domain. It is a proven state that the captives taken in dispute were no less captive than those non captives living in their own home environment's ,that is to say subjects of the KIng?Queen Whichever. The middle passage is the nightmare to which all succumbed and there should be recompense, but to whom?
@scott_ I'm not paying; my family owned zero slaves, and didn't arrive in the US until the 1920s. So stick your "pay reparations." Making an entire generation who've committed no crimes pay an entire generation who've never been enslaved is ridiculous. Should we blame today's German's for the Holocaust? No.
@@v-town1980 Today's Germans have very much recocsiled with their past. Personal responsibility is not the same as cultural responsibility. I don't personally use the things that a portion of my taxes go to but I pay them because it's not an elacart system. That said, I don't believe that we should pay reparations but for different reasons than you stated.
I refuse to be or feel guilty about an occurrence in history. If this country were really free as we are told we are, there wouldn't be an issue of it.
@@tomread8748 yes I did. Foreign born atheists, no matter how eloquent, don't deserve respect when they use it to guilt trip an entire country, especially without mentioning the African culpability in the issue, without mentioning the generational distance, without mentioning the current state of slavery and human trafficking. I would love to debate him or Harris about God, but God took him, denying me the opportunity. His belief system is moral when discussing politicians, but convoluted on the supernatural, because of moral subjectivity not objectivity.
@@eltonron1558 Why does where he was born devalue his comment? It's not like he had much of a choice in the matter! He wasn't able to ask his parents, as a sperm or developing foetus, whether they might consider moving to another continent just to reassure a slavery apologist on an internet site that his viewpoint is relevant because he happens to come from a random geographical location. And why can't he have a valid opinion if he's an atheist too, in a democratic discussion? Difficult for him to mention all of the things that you listed in a 10 minute time slot, and it's easy for you to do that in hindsight, but it deflects from the point he raises (which I think is mainly the reason you're posting here, isn't it?).
@@tomread8748 If he were an American, he would have privy to the American experience, and possibly the years of propagation of guilt we as Americans are supposed to submit to. Where he came from is admitted knee jerk initial reaction, however, I f I can't get reparations for my father's exposure to agent orange, if I can't get reparations for my exposure to unionized leftist fraud educators, if I can't get reparations for the horrors my grandparents suffered, at the hands of nazis, do you get where it's going? My own government is morally, and economically bankrupt, yet as a taxpayer, I'm going to be responsible for " the original sin", generations ago? Fuck no, and that is the REAL point, not that he is a foreigner, or atheist, or eloquent.
First subtract out welfare payments and the monetary worth of affirmative action and then cut by proportion down to the actual proportion the percent of slave ancestry and reduce by any percent of white ancestry for what is owed to any claimant. Then reduce the amount owed by any individual based on whether they were actual descendents of slave owners and this whole thing becomes meaningless drivel.
simply saying "other people did bad things too, why are they not in trouble?" I think I ridiculous. It shouldn't matter! responsibility needs to be taken for your own actions, and what can be done to remedy the situation must be done.
@@zak1424 "responsibility needs to be taken for your own actions" But it wasn't his own actions. There exists no victim nor perpetrator of the crime you speak of in the world anymore. Meanwhile the practice of slavery is nearly abolished and outlawed world-wide today, and Africa has received unimaginable sums of money in charity throughout the last century. I'd like you to explain who is responsible for both of these things, and why they would owe anyone anything. You can argue that throwing money at Africa has not changed anything and I might even agree with you, but you must still name who handed over that money.
Its the same as saying Germany should be Paying Israel, Turkey should be paying Armenia and Spain should pay millions to Latin America. Past deeds are not current affairs.
MrInfidelX But the German people still didn't kill them. Naz's did. Just as should we in the West pay money to the middle East for our soldiers invading during the crusades? No because it wasn't the people it was a radical, murderous faction.
nathan templar They knew they were being deported, made to work, etc. They also knew Hitler was planning to invade other countries in the name of German supremacism, and they cheered him on. If you think slavery was alright; and if you directly benefitted from slavery and raised no objection to it; then yes I would blame you.
funny to see all of the exact bad faith arguments being played out here in the comments section against reparations that Hitchens warned about in this video...
too be fair; he's made an argued against a position that no one was arguing. And it's very difficult to assign a value to reparat when neither population of white or black living today have either owned slaves or been enslaved. So, I don't think there is an argument for reparations in the Americas. And the same is true for Africa; how do you produce a quantity of value to be repatriated to Africa? If you cannot find that value, then when do you know that youve successfully repaid what us owed? The answer is that you can't.
@@atlehman69 Oh the irony in you using the phrase "straw man" here, because that's exactly what I'm referring to in people's arguments against reparations. Hitchens here is warning, essentially, against the straw man. He's warning against the straw man of the pro-reparation argument, wherein they twist the pro-reparationist's argument with non sequiturs and the classic "so what you're saying is...". 3:10 to approximately 4:40 in this video are the relevant time stamps. Here Hitchens is speaking of non sequiturs, with clear analogies to the reparation argument. And I see the same kinds on non sequiturs that he's referring to in the video in this comments section.
@@RikkSpencer this argument isn't over what the right "value" is to assign reparations, merely if they should be made in some form. Those forms could be made in many ways, monetary or otherwise. For example, affirmative action could be said to be a form of reparation. But to say that no one is arguing against reparations seems disingenuous. There are certainly many people in America today (maybe even a majority of people?) who would agree that there should be *no* reparation for slavery of any form. Hitchens is here merely arguing that there *should* be a non-zero reparation for slavery. What value should be assigned to such a reparation? Well, that's another detailed topic, but I don't think anyone on the pro-reparation side of this argument is advocating anything very extreme in the quantity of that value. And Hitchens here even seems to think that whatever value is assigned is likely to be inadequate, but at least better than nothing ("best is the enemy of the good").
@Klaa2 Please discredit the fact that my family moved here in the 1910s.... How much do I owe Americans that were never slaves for my sin of never being remotely connected to American slave owners...?
I'm not really convinced by it. Pretty much everyone would agree that at *some* point down the line it would be ridiculous to ask for reparations - for example if your great, great, great (etc) grandfather from 500 years ago was a slave but nobody after him was, it would be obviously ridiculous for you to expect reparations even if nobody down the line was paid them before. So it's only logical that at some point, even if none of your family tree had gotten reparations, it would just start to be ridiculous to ask for them. So it just becomes a question of where that line is drawn. Obviously if you were a slave yourself, you should be given reparations, but everyone who was legally a slave in America has been dead for a century. If your parents were slaves but you weren't then I would support reparations there. If your grandparents were that would start to become a little more tenuous, but I think you could argue for that, and there's probably a small handful of those people still around. Beyond that I'm not really convinced by it.
The money made on slavery on still there though. Passed down from one genration to another. And few give it back like Carnegie or Buffet. occupywallstreet.net/story/15-major-corporations-you-never-knew-profited-slavery Let them built 500 high quality school in the projects/slums of US cities.
nikosvault So the solution is to take money from people who had nothing to do with the practice of slavery and give it to people who were never slaves, and whose parents/grandparents were never slaves? If you want to build schools in poor neighborhoods that's great, but that's just a good in itself, I don't really see that as relating to reparations
GiantSandles I think the best idea is to release descendants of slaves from debts. No one has to pay money and therefore black people don't get resented and, in extreme cases, attacked (which will no doubt happen). It also gives black people an ability to start over and build estate in a way that was never possible before. Also, redlining needs to be banned in some way. But, to start, a genuine apology is needed
I see what your trying to say but 500 years? Slavery in America wasn't in the 1500's and actually the last living slave was Sylvester Magee, who died in 1971.
YES!!!! Give the descendants of African slaves and the indigenous peoples of all colonized lands their freedom, once and for all! Reparations are a must!
@@phatbackbeat6553 yeah but thise who had authority over us abused their responsibility. The repercussions of their choices that rippled through time warrant some kind of compensation.
Reginald West we give Israel a lot of money to combat terrorism and keep the oil flowing to the USA 🇺🇸 That money is for no reparations .., it’s to fight Islam. 🤷♂️
ChristianDrums777 the Nation has moved on from this “very dark period “ in our history .., so too must its people. Reparations, legally speaking, is unconstitutional. The Democrats know this, but they make these promises to try to buy votes.., just like free tuition or free healthcare. The 40 acres and a mule is not coming.., and it never was going to happen. It was a lie then and it is a lie now. Stop believing and depending on the Government. They do not care about individuals and freedom.., just power and votes ! 🤷♂️
