Don Lemon brings up reparations only for some British woman to tell him to go ask Africans for the money.

If you're so worried about world hunger, why don't you go and do something about it instead of sitting on your lazy butt and whining?

Bro producing yarn is literally part of the textile industry. Yes, Indian textiles were banned from import across much of Europe in the first half of the eighteenth century, and this led in part to the industrial revolution... Britain outcompeted.. blah blah blah. But by the twentieth century India was the leading exporter of cotton thread, leading exporter of raw cotton, and had complete dominance over the low-quality cotton cloth products, as well as a commanding lead in the production of jute, which was used extensively for storing and transporting bulk goods.

The real problem with the Indian textile industry in the 20th century was that any attempts to modernize and match the efficiency of British and American workers were met with general strikes amongst the mill workers. They had complete leverage because unless you already had a job in the city, you were a badli who returned to the farm seasonally and thus could not be relied upon by the mill owners. The Indian workers would manage 3 looms, where as the American and British workers would manage fifteen. Even though the Anglo workers were paid much, much, more, they were still more efficient than the Indian workers who refused to manage more than three.

The low wages were pointless in the face of workers who didn't provide much value. Thus despite having many factories, low wages, and an otherwise good environment, the Indian textile industry could not compete in high-end cloth. Almost all the high-quality products were being consumed domestically.

The reality is that if the industrial revolution happened while India was still under the Mughals, the Indian cloth industry would have been mogged by the British factories anyways because social conditions prevented the Indian workers from being even 20% as effective.

The British and American wages eventually rose enough that cheap cloth wasn't worthwhile, so it was left to the Indians, but that's where the Japanese came in and undercut them with Anglo-style factories with Indian-style wages. They used a captive labour force of indentured farm girls who were only in the factories for a few years and had no ties to the community there, completely removing any chance of labour unrest and treating them little better than slaves. Boom, India was being viciously outcompeted, and they turned around and lobbied for tariffs, which the Brits were happy to do because it meant that they had a leg up on selling high-end cloth to the Indian market.

Good post

There’s already a book on it. It’s called Wickerpedia.

you're fricking bananas if you think I'm reading all that, take my downvote and shut up idiot

You can own people without oppressing them: see parents and children.

BIPOCs shouldn't have equal rights, they are not fully human.

And did that "Jim Crow" put the crack in your pockets?

Slavery failed as an institution because it was socialism. And socialism has never worked. You want @collectijism can send you something you won’t watch that explains it. But paying people food and shelter and having too whip them all day too get them too work sun up too sun down died. Only the cotton gin and giant super industrial size plantations made it even barely profitable

Detrans lives matter

That’s what I said

Neighbor that's still 62 years before.

https://rdrama.net/post/106016/don-lemon-brings-up-reparations-only/2757727?context=8#context

I agree with you. My take is that nations don't owe anything to anybody but their own citizens.

Like if some barbarian tribe crossed the Romans, bad move - all of the savages ended up as slaves. They didn't like it? Tough shit. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Anybody who crossed Rome became their enemy - and we have no moral obligation to be nice to our enemies: on the contrary, we want to be as vicious as possible towards them to teach them not to frick with us. America was founded on Roman Republic principles (basically it was intended to be Rome 2.0) so it makes sense that the same logic applies.

But when the blacks were freed and officially became U.S. citizens, at that point the U.S. had a duty of care towards them and should have treated them fairly and equally. That didn't happen. So while I feel that Africa ought to pay 100% of the reparations for slavery especially since Africans are the most prolific practioners of slavery (to this very day, 1 in 100 Africans is still a slave, which is morally reprehensible and clearly shows that Africa hasn't learned to accept accountabilty for its crimes against humanity), America owes black people some gibs for the unfair way they were treated during the Jim Crow era, because at that point they were officially U.S. citizens and should have been protected by the social contract.

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal or anything - I'm actually pretty conservative to be honest. This is just my personal opinion based on how I interpret the obligations of a nation towards its own citizenry. A nation that operates under a two-tiered justice system or legal system has no legitimacy.

It's called tough love, honey.