Comments by "Arnold Hubbert" (@arnoldhubbert6779) on "Al Jazeera English" channel.

"Racist?" If you're not of actual indigenous heritage, then you're not a member of the tribe.
7
@alwilliamblackburn4966 "We Wuz Native Amerikangs"
6
Why would you want to be a member of a group of people WHO ENSLAVED YOUR ANCESTORS? Is it just for the welfare benefits. Wow, you guys really are desparate.
3
The purpose for blacks in claiming to be native American is nothing more than for welfare benefits. You guys have been envious of the lifelong and multigenerational welfare payments made to native Americans, and you want to get on that same gravy train. The only reason why some of you THINK you have native ancestry is because your ancestors were enslaved by some native American tribes. The other notion, that blacks were indigenous, is easily refuted by the overwhelming evidence that all your black ancestors were brought by the Atlantic slave trade from Africa. If any blacks actually do have native DNA (which is actually far rarer than white Americans having native DNA), your'e still not "native" anymore than white Americans would be considered native.
3
@lorenalittlejohn7379 Delusional fantasies, by someone so desperate to believe that you're some how indigenous. You're not. If you've done your genealogy, it'll show your ancestors were ENSLAVED by native tribes, not actually of native descent. This fact has been proven over and over. DNA has actually proven to be quite accurate, especially when it comes to African DNA. An AA can submit a dna sample, and without even informing the lab, get results back showing exactly where in West Africa your ancestors were enslaved before being brought to America. In fact, every AA whose submitted a DNA test, have NEVER come back as indigenous, but have always shown the majority of your dna is exactly from the regions in West Africa where the record shows your ancestors were enslaved. The fact you actually use the name of Tuskegee College of proof that blacks are native is absurd. I come from Utah, which is a native American tribe. Does that mean I'm native? No and I'm not. Not even a little.
1
@KevinGloverpost24 why should people who didn't have anything to do with slavery and who actually fought to end it, have to atone for anything?
1
So, when people decide to do the same thing to themselves as well as killing their own unborn babies, then it's humane?
1
@JDoe-gf5oz You're correct.
1
Have you taken a dna test? If you have, it'll show your ancestors came from western Africa, exactly the same regions where the historical records say your African ancestors were enslaved before being brought to America.
1
I agree. Would you also agree that art, etc. looted from Germany should be returned to them also (mostly by the Soviets, but by the other Allies too)?
1
I agree. They should start by returning all the immigrants and refugees from those countries.
1
what about the black africans who enslaved your ancestors first? Should their descendants (and the nations where they resided) also be brought before a tribunal for their crimes?
1
@indigoix It IS my business. As an American citizen, what you are demanding would affect me as well. However, I get why you don't want me commenting. Since it's so easy to counter your claims with the truth and obvious evidence, the last thing you want is someone to point out the obvious.
1
@indigoix But it still will affect me. Aren't you all wanting "free" stuff and money from the government (as members of a tribe) and to free-load off taxpayers? We all know that's at least half of your motivation (the other half is to somehow appropriate a different heritage other than your african one). As a citizen, I would be paying for that in taxation. So it it my business and I do have a say. So, are you going to ignore my original question about the africans who enslaved your ancestors first?
1
@carmensandiego6996 but Europeans aren't asking for reparations. Do you get the difference?
1
why don't you claim the land of your actual ancestors in Africa?
1
Denmark didn't just specifically target "indigenous" people. This was practiced all over Scandinavia during the same time period. People who were considered immoral, unstable, or a burden on society were treated this way. It was wrong, but it wasn't "racist." However, easy solution. Denmark should just allow Greenland complete independence, including economic (no more economic support). This is of course already a standing offer but the Greenlanders don't want it. They don't think they could survive without continued economic support.
1
I agree that any stolen art ought to be returned if a rightful heir can be found. However, before anything should be "returned" to any potential heirs, it should be first checked if the art was sold for a reasonable price. Then, price should be compared to the price at which the art was originally purchased by the Jewish owners. They're often finding that the price at which the art was sold was at the market price at the time and are even finding out that in many cases, much of the art acquired by Jewish art dealers were at basement level prices, even lower than the price they sold it for, as a result of desperate people during the great depression. Two wrongs don't make a right. And, in every case, even though the art is being portrayed and some kind of a long-time Jewish family heirloom, in reality, most of it was only owned for a brief period (often just a few years), and in many cases had been acquired from original owners who had possessed it for a very long time, often hundreds of years, in some cases. The Jewish heir's emotional "attachment" to the restituted art is clear in that in virtually every case, it's immediately sold it to the highest bidder. In most cases, in my opinion, the art's rightful owner ought to be the Dutch people and displayed in Dutch museums.
1
Would you also agree that art, etc. looted from Germany should be returned to them also (mostly by the Soviets, but by the other Allies too)?
1