As usual, the 'conservatives' get in wrong in responding to the rantings of this female who thinks 'reparations' are due to her and her racial brethren (and sistren).
“I wonder where the descendants of the ‘DeWolf’ family are today. they
should all have their houses burned and their finances seized,” Azealia
tweeted. “This generation of young black kids needs to make a CONCERTED
effort to seek out living descendants of major slave trading families.
They Owe us Money.”
Now you may laugh this off as some addled 'celebrity' who wants attention, but she is calling attention to the De Wolf family, whom she has supposedly researched as 'slave traders' and actually inciting 'kids' to burn down the houses of descendants of the De Wolf family. She demands seizure of De Wolf family assets. Does this female have a clue that people's finances and assets cannot legally be seized willy-nilly, just because some mob clamors for it? And does this dim bulb stop to think that there might be many people of the name De Wolf in this country or in Europe who may or may not be ''the'' De Wolf family, whom she accuses of profiting from slave-trading?
So it's just not practical -- nor is it constitutional or legal, nor is it ethical, to try to grab 'reparations' from even the proven descendants of those bad old De Wolf ancestors -- who were, incidentally, doing something that was not forbidden by law in most places back then. Can we retroactively prosecute people, or sue them or seize their money based on their doing something that was not illicit then? If we can, why not sue the descendants of tribes that captured and sold slaves of other tribes? I wonder which side of that bargain Mz Banks' ancestors were? Did her ancestral tribe(s) sell others to Arabs to be re-sold to Europeans? Or were they the captives, or both? Likely, the latter. It's very possible her ancestors participated in the slave trade, selling as well as being sold.
That being said, if you read the comments on the 'conservative' forum you will see the usual responses, along the lines of 'my ancestors weren't even in this country yet, so I'm not guilty' or 'my ancestors fought to free the slaves; I don't owe reparations' or 'My g-g-grandfather was killed while fighting to free the slaves; do I get reparations?' My question to the last kind of response is: did your ancestors' willingness to kill fellow Whites -- Southrons -- result in a better world? Looking around me, I don't think it did, because over half a million young mens' lives were lost, the South was ravaged and impoverished, harsh Reconstruction continued the depradations, and this segued into the anti-White policies of the 20th century. It all led us right to where we are now. Slavery could have ended peacefully without 600,000+ sacrificed. Yet Lincoln et al wanted to prosecute the war to end talk of secession and cement the sacred ''Union'', which is more like a forced marriage.
But I don't care to harp on that kind of vindictive note, unlike Banks and all the others who clamor for some kind of financial rewards for their sufferings -- especially as they themselves never experienced any of it personally, and have only learned of it secondhand. Without being taught by anti-White 'whites' they would not have any inkling about history; they care only about those facets of 'history' that profit them as a group.
My quarrel with the 'conservatives' who try to point the finger at other White Americans (Southrons or those who somehow were involved in slavery generally) is that they are taking the black claims at face value, and in essence consenting that somebody, some White, is in fact guilty, and does in fact ''owe'' reparations to blacks, because blacks have a legitimate moral grievance.They must believe in the anti-White narrative of 'White guilt' and minority victimhood, and the idea that we all owe something to the noble savages whose Eden we invaded and destroyed. This is in fact accepting the liberal doctrine. No one who calls himself 'conservative' or in any way illiberal would accept that, as do the modern-day 'respectable right' or Republitarians and Libertarians who pass as conservatives.
At least, they should show some backbone and try to refute the legitimacy of such claims. And incidentally -- how can calling for 'burning the houses' of innocent people be justified or tolerated? Conservatives have truly lost their moral compass when they do not immediately call out people who say such inflammatory things. A few do, but a great many cower and appease instead. Nonwhite Privilege in action: blacks can say whatever enters their heads, while Whites self-censor, stay silent, or are condemned if they speak out of turn.
Lastly, I'm appalled at the lack of solidarity or loyalty among Whites. If the people on that forum are principled people at all, they should not truckle to the likes of Mz Banks or lend any credibility at all to her claims, and they must stop throwing fellow Whites to the wolves by pointing the finger at other Whites. It's called scapegoating or pandering, and it is traitorous in this case. Sadly, it's not just the province of 'liberals' or progressives, but increasingly we see 'conservatives' doing it too. They apparently hope they will 'be eaten last' if they point the finger at another White.