Don Lemon gets schooled on reparations

submitted by [deleted] from twitter.com

all 21 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]chottohen 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Don Lemon is a horse's ass. Africans captured other Africans and put them on mostly Jewish-owned ships.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

Too bad nobody watches CNN anymore.

This idea that white people captured poor innocent black people and sold them into slavery was perpetrated by the movie Roots I believe. Now it's taken as fact by many in the US because that's all people hear about it, the fake version.

[–]chottohen 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

The writer of Roots was shown to have plagiarized one small section of the book but he got off by saying that his notes got mixed in with notes from other books. So I'm saying that he was less than meticulous with preparation of the book.

[–]jet199 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

Or he was just a con-artist

[–]chottohen 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt since his excuse had plausible deniability. But, yes. Even the plantation owners were often Jews.

[–]SerpensInferna 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Any time Don Lemon gets slapped (metaphorical or no) in the face is a win for me, dog.

[–]Site_rly_sux 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

The host guy suggests that the royal family's billions might have reparations demands.

The guest lady says, that some africans were involved in slavery, and some royal navy died trying to stop it, so maybe reparations should go the other way.

I would suggest that this is not a great answer for a few reasons.

  1. The question was about the royal family and their wealth. Not the wealth of african warlords. So the answer should be on that topic.

  2. The triangle trade was not, as far as I know, a major contributor to royal family wealth.

  3. Slavery being banned by UK did not eliminate the other terrible things which UK was doing which might be considered for reparations. Opium wars, malay emergency, maumau uprising, Boer wars, etc etc.

  4. I don't think she dealt with the question, I think she avoided it.

  5. The ticker onscreen was about the Duchy of Cornwall, the $1 billion estate mentioned. We should talk about this, because it's a very strange set up. For example, if somebody dies in Cornwall without an heir, the prince gets the money to spend on his gardens or flights or whatever. Should there be reparations to the Cornish community (one of the poorest regions in Europe)? This wasn't dealt with at all.

I think it says a lot that OP gets to call this 'schooled' and move on.

OP (and the tweeter, and the guest woman) doesn't need to deal with any of the points above, because in their dumb minds it's solely a question of the black vs white issues they live in. OP isnt wondering about the opium wars or bengal famine or the Duchy setup. OP wants to live in his comfortable white racist-against-black-peoplw world and never concern himself with nuance or actual history.

So, meh, more upvoted trash from the saidit dipshits

[–]Psychosomatic 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Lemon's question was bait to either get instant agreement to signal her virtue, or to trigger a defensive response highliting the historical reparations already paid invalidating any modern claim as gibs. The guest handled the bait well by redirecting the host toward the original sinner in the African slave trade, being Africans themselves. All technicalities aside, the response was effective in leaving Lemon without his usual smugness and arrogance.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Lemon's question was bait to either get instant agreement to signal her virtue, or to trigger a defensive response highliting the historical reparations already paid invalidating any modern claim as gibs

What evidence led you to that conclusion?

Because it seems to me he's just trying to talk about the news and issues of the day...but apparently he has ulterior motives which you are privvy to?

The guest handled the bait well by redirecting the host toward the original sinner in the African slave trade, being Africans themselves

I agree that the guest redirected, but the question wasn't about slavery. She redirected the topic onto the African slave trade where it seemed she had a prepared answer. The question was not about the African slave trade.

All technicalities aside, the response was effective in leaving Lemon without his usual smugness and arrogance.

I'd say the response failed to examine anything outside of that one slice of history which isn't even related to the royals' wealth, and therefore she totally failed to address the question put to her.

If anyone here is smug, it's people who heard the host's question, and assumed it was about the African slave trade, then plugged in their stock answer to such a question without giving any thought to the topic at hand.

Even in your answer here you didn't address the Duchy's looting of Cornwall, which is the $1 billion estate mentioned on-screen in the clip. Why did you also assume that the host was asking about Africa specifically?

[–]Psychosomatic 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Since the Queen's passing, US TV hosts have been using racial reparations as a talking point, dependant on the ignorance of Joe public who are an inch away from looting Target again because of some ancestral right given to them in their fiery but mostly peaceful protests. Damn right it was a bait question. There's no doubt that the topic was intentionally derailed and the speaker was smug, but screw any US TV host who tries to bait with talk of giving gibs, for what? Centuries past?

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Again this is just plucked out your ass with no evidence. Just a feeling you're having.

And you forgot to answer my questions above.

[–]Psychosomatic 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Forgot, chose to dismiss, etc.

[–]iDontShift 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

i postulate that the british never left anywhere they went, and they only 'left' after they had attained certain assets which allowed them 'controlling share' in whatever land they went

british crown = rot(h)childs or at least they act like it

So, meh, more upvoted trash from the saidit dipshits

it is relevant, it shows the elites methods for avoiding responsibility, and as you point out, all the things omitted

if somebody dies in Cornwall without an heir, the prince gets the money to spend on his gardens or flights or whatever.

the elite have taken the position of 'the house' .. and 'the house' always wins because the game is rigged

the house always pretends they have no power, while literally making up the rules that ensure their victory

play by their rules, and lose, because mathematically impossible to overcome

OP isnt wondering about the opium wars or bengal famine or the Duchy setup.

they did those things to achieve their goals to attain 'controlling shares'

[–]Site_rly_sux 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well that's just silly isn't it. Because Hong Kong is definitely ran by the reds. Singapore has had generations of the Lees in charge. There's no sense in which India suffers a British controlling stake.

Actually your post totally denies that Indians, Ghanaians, Malays etc have the wherewithal or nous to run their own nations. Why wouldn't the Indians, on achieving independence, take for themselves this "controlling stake", do you just believe they aren't capable of taking it back? Why would they leave it in British hands?

The Rothschilds are not particularly notable or important in British finance or crown affairs. The royal family famously banks with Coutts, which is owned by the Royal Bank of Scotland, not with any scary Jewish bankers from your Goebbels films.

They don't "act like it", you've never seen them "act like it" but you've read some scary internet posts that suggested as much. And because you cannot properly filter the dumb internet posts you consume, you mistook that for them "acting like it"

[–]iDontShift 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why wouldn't the Indians

why not indeed? they did to a degree more than others. they are the country that asked for Phizer to provide proof their vax worked and exposed them for their inability to do so.

i do see that as more independent than 99% of the nations. and that is because of their long history that has included spirituality within its political framework as part of its culture that makes it harder to erase

site_rly_sux

you think that because your narrative fails to stick

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

In response to your edits

it is relevant, it shows the elites methods for avoiding responsibility

No it doesn't, it's a tweet where one woman talks for a minute. Unless you believe she is the one and only member of "the elite"?

the house always pretends they have no power, while literally making up the rules that ensure their victory

No, that's the published law of the land, there is no pretending going on. I told you about the Duchy of Cornwall, nothing else is applicable to my statement.

they did those things to achieve their goals to attain 'controlling shares'

In the East India company? I don't think that's factually correct that the royal family had a controlling share in the EIC.

Dude you are potentially quite deranged, everything you wrote is here totally incorrect

[–]iDontShift 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

the only derangement here is in you trying to frame me as such

you are a fuck, and that is just fake and silly, go away

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I will extend the same offer to you that I have offered to all of saidit. If you are worried that I'm paid to be here then let's do a video call and you can have a look at me and make your own mind up. Weirdly nobody has taken me up on the offer, but maybe you'd like to - I'm on discord, WhatsApp, whatever you want.

    No, I am not upvoting myself, I could not care less how many votes I get, and I write most posts fully assuming the conspiritard racists will not upvote at all. I'm sure the admins here will investigate IPs and whatever to prevent shill voting

    [–]package 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Lol

    [–]jerkwad152 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    The look on his face tells it all. Immediately after the camera cut off, he had to have had a screaming tantrum like a two-year-old, complete with snot hanging off his face.

    [–]Feldheld 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Also, colonialism was a huge net benefit for the colonies.