Reparations time. Pay what you owe!!

[travestyny]

I'm not getting that it was a total failure.

Freedmen’s Bureau, (1865–72), during the Reconstruction period after the American Civil War, popular name for the U.S. Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, established by Congress to provide practical aid to 4,000,000 newly freed African Americans in their transition from slavery to freedom. Headed by Maj. Gen. Oliver O. Howard, the Freedmen’s Bureau might be termed the first federal welfare agency. Despite handicaps of inadequate funds and poorly trained personnel, the bureau built hospitals for, and gave direct medical assistance to, more than 1,000,000 freedmen. More than 21,000,000 rations were distributed to impoverished blacks as well as whites.

Its greatest accomplishments were in education: more than 1,000 black schools were built and over $400,000 spent to establish teacher-training institutions. Among the historically black colleges and universities that received aid from the bureau were Atlanta University (1865; now Clark Atlanta University) and Fisk University (1866; originally the Fisk School), named for Gen. Clinton B. Fisk of the Tennessee Freedmen’s Bureau, who gave the school its original facilities in a former Union army barracks. Howard University, founded in 1867 through an act by the U.S. Congress, was named for Maj. Gen. Howard.

Those colleges are still around to this day which is a pretty remarkable achievement imo. So, I guess the point being that actions were taken to help with the transition back then. I think it's a good point when considering reparations. $400,000 back then must translate to several million today. I guess I'm surprised that this never comes up when I see reparations discussions. Might be interesting to see if it ever comes up in the upcoming election. As with reparations itself, we shall see, man.

I didn't say it was a total failure, but the reason that it isn't mentioned is because it was not as successful as you are making it seem. Southern Whites were against it, it was a target for the klan, it was understaffed and underfunded, some of it's achievements were overturned, and it really didn't make much of a difference other than helping to found those schools. Again, the most important thing would have been establishing land for the slaves, and any land that it succeeded in giving to slaves was eventually returned.

Here's some info on what it failed to do, and what could be deemed successful about it.

Freedmen’s Bureau’s Demise
In the summer of 1872, Congress, responding in part to pressure from white Southerners, dismantled the Freedmen’s Bureau.

Since that time, historians have debated the agency’s effectiveness. A lack of funding, coupled with the politics of race and Reconstruction, meant that the bureau was not able to carry out all of its initiatives, and it failed to provide long-term protection for blacks or ensure any real measure of racial equality.


However, the bureau’s efforts did signal the introduction of the federal government into issues of social welfare and labor relations. As noted in The Freedmen’s Bureau and Reconstruction, “The Bureau helped awaken Americans to the promise of freedom, and for a time, the Bureau’s physical presence in the South made palpable to many citizens the abstract principles of equal access to the law and free labor.”

https://www.history.com/topics/black...eedmens-bureau

So besides helping to fund some of the schools, it really didn't accomplish much before it was ended. And remember, this was happening at the time of reconstruction when Jim Crow laws were being established that would wreck the chances for this to make any meaningful headway. The Jim Crow era is the other side of the coin in this debate that we haven't even mentioned because we were focused on just slavery, but reparations always includes the Jim Crow era as well.

[Curtis Harper]

Which I finally did....days ago...when you were still asking me to answer the question. Just shut up already.





Oh really? I just gave you proof of one who does, but you conveniently ignore that. If you are too pvssy to respond to the things that I post, stop quoting me. You've done absolutely nothing here except behave like a coward.



So now you're saying they "enslaved" the natives to kill them? If that's not what you're saying, what the fvvck is your point?





It's an opinion you moron. Like I said, obviously some would have traded places with the natives because they decided they'd rather die than be a slave, and the reason you first brought up the natives was because you were talking about how many of them died, but you were too stupid and too misinformed that you didn't realize that the majority of them died not because they were directly killed, but because of diseases.


There is no reason for this conversation to continue. I don't want to discuss things with a coward who refuses to answer even ONE of my questions and just ignores everything I write. So until you grow some balls, go play in traffic.

You must have had that answer hidden with useless mumblings. My apologies. If you can make me shut up, I will be impressed (ignore function time ?!?!?).

https://www.complex.com/music/2017/1...-he-isnt-black
'' “When it comes to talking about African Americans,I have no education with that. Period,” he said at the 5:17 mark.''
!!!!! You should tweet Waka and tell him how you feel.

Natives were hunted down with the sole intent on TAKING THEIR LAND. Those who survived/surrendered were enslaved. Worst got better or worser ?!?!?!? Please tell me how American slave owners nearly wiped out Africans.....Feel free to bold/ul each word.

You shared your answer in which I wasn't shocked at all by. If you lectured every African American you come across, and schooled them in your vast knowledge of BOTH (African AND Native history), no way a newly educated African American who has slavery in the family would switch sides.

Meaning, as badly as you feel African slaves were treated, the natives feel 5.5 millions times worse. YET, where are their protests ??? Their yelling for reparations ?!?!? Where are their ''you must interview/hire'' laws ?!?!? Where are their funding's and amendments ?!?!? Why aren't they thriving ?!?!?

Let me know if you come across anyone even less educated on this subject as your friend Waka

[Tony Trick-Pony]

I didn't say it was a total failure, but the reason that it isn't mentioned is because it was not as successful as you are making it seem. Southern Whites were against it, it was a target for the klan, it was understaffed and underfunded, some of it's achievements were overturned, and it really didn't make much of a difference other than helping to found those schools. Again, the most important thing would have been establishing land for the slaves, and any land that it succeeded in giving to slaves was eventually returned.

Here's some info on what it failed to do, and what could be deemed successful about it.




So besides helping to fund some of the schools, it really didn't accomplish much before it was ended. And remember, this was happening at the time of reconstruction when Jim Crow laws were being established that would wreck the chances for this to make any meaningful headway. The Jim Crow era is the other side of the coin in this debate that we haven't even mentioned because we were focused on just slavery, but reparations always includes the Jim Crow era as well.

I found this link and from I've read so far, I think it is definitely significant enough to bring up in the conversation:

The Freedmen's Bureau aided many African Americans and impoverished whites in the Reconstruction Era, shortly after the Civil War. Had this system not been created by the Congress, it would've left many African Americans and poor Southerners to die of starvation, medical illnesses, or even due to lack of shelter. The Bureau provided all of the above including an exceptional education system for African Americans. Now African Americans were slowly moving up to the place of whites in society. The Freedmen's Bureau was ridding discrimination and enforcing equality for all members of the American society. The Freedmen's Bureau acted as a backbone to all African Americans. They weren't just left with nothing after earning freedom. It can be interpreted that the Bureau served the role of guidance in the transitional period. Without the establishment of the Bureau, African Americans would've been left with absolutely nothing. Unfortunately not everyone was in favor of the Freedmen's Bureau. The President, Andrew Jackson, himself had vetoed it twice. Soon enough, the Congress who themselves had established it for the newly freed members of its' country, terminated the Freedmen's Bureau. However before it was terminated, it had already set a benchmark of great achievements. African Americans were becoming literate, they had homes and jobs, and starvation became a rare occurrence. The poor Southerners who were left to work without the help of free African American labor didn't lose their homes, learned the ways of self employment and were able to provide their themselves with their own food. Had the Freedmen's Bureau continued, it would've made even more accomplishments in favor of the African Americans and impoverished whites in the South.

https://significanceofreedmensbureau...nificance.html

And I'm fine with getting into the Jim Crow era. Heck, if you want to make your case, let's take a look at all of it. No arguments and bickering- just learning. Definitely good for the brain. Hehe. I'm sure you agree, man. And obviously you have looked at a lot of this which I appreciate. Just trying to learn more myself.

[travestyny]

You must have had that answer hidden with useless mumblings. My apologies. If you can make me shut up, I will be impressed (ignore function time ?!?!?).

If you accepted my answer....the same one that was sitting there for days and was sitting there after you were still talking about me not answering you...then that obviously means that the answer was there.

You just kept claiming I didn't answer because you knew you'd have to answer some of my questions next, which you've shown over and over that you refuse to do here. So what's the point. If you can't answer any questions, there is no need to continue. You obviously want to duck and hide rather than talk about this honestly.

https://www.complex.com/music/2017/1...-he-isnt-black
'' “When it comes to talking about African Americans,I have no education with that. Period,” he said at the 5:17 mark.''
!!!!! You should tweet Waka and tell him how you feel.

Why are you bolding that he has no education with that? What's the significance of him saying that?????

He's obviously of African descent, and not full Native, as he claims his parents are. And that's his prerogative if he wants to feel that way. I don't care that he does, so there is no reason for me to write to him. It was your stupidity saying that no one would want to trade with full Natives, and he proved you wrong.

Natives were hunted down with the sole intent on TAKING THEIR LAND. Those who survived/surrendered were enslaved. Worst got better or worser ?!?!?!? Please tell me how American slave owners nearly wiped out Africans.....Feel free to bold/ul each word.

Again, ignoring my posts. THEY WERE NEARLY WIPED OUT MOSTLY DUE TO DISEASE.

Are you telling me that more Natives died at the hands of Europeans than due to disease?

Oh, that's right. You dont' want to answer any questions.

They were re-routed to designated areas. SLAVES HAD NO LAND AND WERE OWNED. This shouldn't be a hard concept for anyone with a brain to understand.

You shared your answer in which I wasn't shocked at all by. If you lectured every African American you come across, and schooled them in your vast knowledge of BOTH (African AND Native history), no way a newly educated African American who has slavery in the family would switch sides.

You need to stop talking about things as if they are facts when you are giving opinions based on a topic that you know fvvck all about.

Obviously some would switch sides because they could survive and be free on designated land instead of enslaved, which was the reason that many killed themselves. But you want to ignore this because, again, you're a coward.

Meaning, as badly as you feel African slaves were treated, the natives feel 5.5 millions times worse. YET, where are their protests ??? Their yelling for reparations ?!?!? Where are their ''you must interview/hire'' laws ?!?!? Where are their funding's and amendments ?!?!? Why aren't they thriving ?!?!?

They are still asking for their land back, you moron. How stupid are you?


And again, did most of them die due to disease? Let's see if you are ready to answer some questions.

Let me know if you come across anyone even less educated on this subject as your friend Waka

YOU re less educated on the subject than he is, that's for sure. You're also a coward that fears my questions which is why you can't answer EVEN ONE.


If you are ready to answer questions, let me know. Until then, you idiot, stop talking about shlt that you don't know anything about. You're only embarrassing yourself.

[travestyny]

If you lectured every African American you come across, and schooled them in your vast knowledge of BOTH (African AND Native history), no way a newly educated African American who has slavery in the family would switch sides.

Tell me, if no one would switch sides, why did some slaves run away from slavery to live their lives with Natives?

Prior to statehood and the growth of cities, many fugitives from slavery lived with friendly Native Americans. Many African Americans hoped that whites, already fearful of Native Americans, would not look for them among the natives. During the late 1700s and the early 1800s, many African Americans settled in Upper Sandusky with the Wyandot natives.

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/...s_from_Slavery

Hmmm. Do you see that you don't know what the fvvck you are talking about now?

Also, some natives owned slaves themselves. Do you think the African slave would have traded places with the Native American owner?

Time for you to give up, son.

[travestyny]

I found this link and from I've read so far, I think it is definitely significant enough to bring up in the conversation:

The Freedmen's Bureau aided many African Americans and impoverished whites in the Reconstruction Era, shortly after the Civil War. Had this system not been created by the Congress, it would've left many African Americans and poor Southerners to die of starvation, medical illnesses, or even due to lack of shelter. The Bureau provided all of the above including an exceptional education system for African Americans. Now African Americans were slowly moving up to the place of whites in society. The Freedmen's Bureau was ridding discrimination and enforcing equality for all members of the American society. The Freedmen's Bureau acted as a backbone to all African Americans. They weren't just left with nothing after earning freedom. It can be interpreted that the Bureau served the role of guidance in the transitional period. Without the establishment of the Bureau, African Americans would've been left with absolutely nothing. Unfortunately not everyone was in favor of the Freedmen's Bureau. The President, Andrew Jackson, himself had vetoed it twice. Soon enough, the Congress who themselves had established it for the newly freed members of its' country, terminated the Freedmen's Bureau. However before it was terminated, it had already set a benchmark of great achievements. African Americans were becoming literate, they had homes and jobs, and starvation became a rare occurrence. The poor Southerners who were left to work without the help of free African American labor didn't lose their homes, learned the ways of self employment and were able to provide their themselves with their own food. Had the Freedmen's Bureau continued, it would've made even more accomplishments in favor of the African Americans and impoverished whites in the South.

https://significanceofreedmensbureau...nificance.html

And I'm fine with getting into the Jim Crow era. Heck, if you want to make your case, let's take a look at all of it. No arguments and bickering- just learning. Definitely good for the brain. Hehe. I'm sure you agree, man. And obviously you have looked at a lot of this which I appreciate. Just trying to learn more myself.

No, I don't mind at all, bro. I'm actually impressed that you're even looking into this.


The things that can't be ignored is that the black codes (which led into the Jim Crow era), didn't allow for much of a change to occur. Here's a little something about that:

The Black Codes were laws passed by Southern states in 1865 and 1866 in the United States after the American Civil War with the intent and the effect of restricting African Americans' freedom, and of compelling them to work in a labor economy based on low wages or debt. Black Codes were part of a larger pattern of Southern whites, who were trying to suppress the new freedom of emancipated African-American slaves, the freedmen. Black codes were essentially replacements for slave codes in those states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_...(United_States)

So you still had that going on at the time of the Bureau.

And after slavery ended, the prison system was widely used to continue slavery. You can look into things like the "convict lease" program, which was called, "Slavery under a different name."
They would arrest people for no reason or just small infractions to enslave them.

Here is a mention of how the black codes thwarted the bureau

Throughout the first year, its representatives learned that these tasks would be very difficult, as Southern legislatures passed laws for Black Codes that restricted movement, conditions of labor, and other civil rights of African Americans, nearly duplicating conditions of slavery. The Freedmen's Bureau controlled a limited amount of arable land.[4]

Congress dismantled the Bureau in 1872 due to pressure from white Southerners. The Bureau was unable to change much of the social dynamic as whites continued to seek supremacy over blacks, frequently with violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedm...note-pbs.org-3

And here is a bit more about that from the official apology:

Whereas after emancipation from 246 years of slavery, African-Americans soon saw the fleeting political, social, and economic gains they made during Reconstruction eviscerated by virulent racism, lynchings, disenfranchisement, Black Codes, and racial segregation laws that imposed a rigid system of officially sanctioned racial segregation in virtually all areas of life;

Whereas it is important for this country, which legally recognized slavery through its Constitution and its laws, to make a formal apology for slavery and for its successor, Jim Crow, so that it can move forward and seek reconciliation, justice, and harmony for all of its citizens: Now, therefore, be it.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hres194/text

So the US acknowledges that there were "fleeting" gains, that were "eviscerated."

And more on the Bureau here:

Southern whites were basically opposed to blacks having any rights at all, and the Bureau lacked military force to back up its authority as the army had been quickly disbanded and most of the soldiers assigned to the Western frontier. The Bureau was able to accomplish some of its goals, especially in the field of education. It established a number of colleges and training schools for blacks, including Howard University (named for General Howard) and Hampton Institute.

Howard believed that the mission of the Bureau was a temporary one, wanting to avoid black dependency on the federal agency. He firmly believed that African Americans should obtain all their rights as quickly as possible, but failed to see that because of Southern white hostility long-term support was necessary for them to do so. The Bureau also failed to bring together whites and blacks in the South because it lacked the means to do so. It needed support from Southern and Northern politicians and received little help from either. Its staff was cut significantly by 1869 and it ceased operations in 1872.

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/jimcro...nts_freed.html

So you can see that it did make some positive changes, but most of these changes were thwarted or the changes that it sought to make weren't made due to racism via violence and racist laws.

[Curtis Harper]

If you accepted my answer....the same one that was sitting there for days and was sitting there after you were still talking about me not answering you...then that obviously means that the answer was there.

You just kept claiming I didn't answer because you knew you'd have to answer some of my questions next, which you've shown over and over that you refuse to do here. So what's the point. If you can't answer any questions, there is no need to continue. You obviously want to duck and hide rather than talk about this honestly.



Why are you bolding that he has no education with that? What's the significance of him saying that?????

He's obviously of African descent, and not full Native, as he claims his parents are. And that's his prerogative if he wants to feel that way. I don't care that he does, so there is no reason for me to write to him. It was your stupidity saying that no one would want to trade with full Natives, and he proved you wrong.



Again, ignoring my posts. THEY WERE NEARLY WIPED OUT MOSTLY DUE TO DISEASE.

Are you telling me that more Natives died at the hands of Europeans than due to disease?

Oh, that's right. You dont' want to answer any questions.

They were re-routed to designated areas. SLAVES HAD NO LAND AND WERE OWNED. This shouldn't be a hard concept for anyone with a brain to understand.




You need to stop talking about things as if they are facts when you are giving opinions based on a topic that you know fvvck all about.

Obviously some would switch sides because they could survive and be free on designated land instead of enslaved, which was the reason that many killed themselves. But you want to ignore this because, again, you're a coward.



They are still asking for their land back, you moron. How stupid are you?


And again, did most of them die due to disease? Let's see if you are ready to answer some questions.






YOU re less educated on the subject than he is, that's for sure. You're also a coward that fears my questions which is why you can't answer EVEN ONE.


If you are ready to answer questions, let me know. Until then, you idiot, stop talking about shlt that you don't know anything about. You're only embarrassing yourself.

Tell me, if no one would switch sides, why did some slaves run away from slavery to live their lives with Natives?



Hmmm. Do you see that you don't know what the fvvck you are talking about now?

Time for you to give up, son.

Phew....When you ''told'' ( ) me to shut up, I was kinda worried.

I'll read the above ''info'' when I'm more bored. At a quick glance, I don't see numbers. Just words like ''many''.

Here's a question that you don't have to answer....Just to mull over.

Knowing what you know now, about all things slavery (as associated with Africa and the 8 slave US colonies) and how things are now (both here and in Africa), would you build a time machine and forbid the practice of enslaving and selling slaves IN AFRICA ?

Forget other nations that enslaved/sold their own. Concentrate only on African slaves -----> America.

Again, you don't have to answer.

[travestyny]

Phew....When you ''told'' ( ) me to shut up, I was kinda worried.

I'll read the above ''info'' when I'm more bored. At a quick glance, I don't see numbers. Just words like ''many''.

Here's a question that you don't have to answer....Just to mull over.

Knowing what you know now, about all things slavery (as associated with Africa and the 8 slave US colonies) and how things are now (both here and in Africa), would you build a time machine and forbid the practice of enslaving and selling slaves IN AFRICA ?

Forget other nations that enslaved/sold their own. Concentrate only on African slaves -----> America.

Again, you don't have to answer.

Dude, I have no problem with answering any of your questions, as I've done since I've been participating in this thread.


It's YOU who refuses to answer even one of my questions, though I've repeatedly disrespected you over it. You have no shame.


When you are ready to answer some of my questions, do let me know. Quid pro quo. I'm getting nothing out of giving you a free history lesson. Your ducking is atrocious.

Feel free to start with this question: If the importation of slaves was made illegal in 1808 in the United States, who was responsible for slavery in America from 1808 - 1865?

When you are ready to man up, let me know.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

No, I don't mind at all, bro. I'm actually impressed that you're even looking into this.


The things that can't be ignored is that the black codes (which led into the Jim Crow era), didn't allow for much of a change to occur. Here's a little something about that:



So you still had that going on at the time of the Bureau.

And after slavery ended, the prison system was widely used to continue slavery. You can look into things like the "convict lease" program, which was called, "Slavery under a different name."
They would arrest people for no reason or just small infractions to enslave them.

Here is a mention of how the black codes thwarted the bureau



And here is a bit more about that from the official apology:



So the US acknowledges that there were "fleeting" gains, that were "eviscerated."

And more on the Bureau here:





So you can see that it did make some positive changes, but most of these changes were thwarted or the changes that it sought to make weren't made due to racism via violence and racist laws.

Excellent response, man. Yeah, the hostility toward black Americans obviously was in full force in those days. I'm definitely glad the country has moved past this.

It's interesting. Obviously the problem was awful. I've been reading up on some Thoas Sowell comments over this time. He would not argue against how bad it was of course, but he does seem to point the blame at government interference in the Jim Crow era. A little food for thought:

The death of Rosa Parks has reminded us of her place in history, as the black woman whose refusal to give up her seat on a bus to a white man, in accordance with the Jim Crow laws of Alabama, became the spark that ignited the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

Most people do not know the rest of the story, however. Why was there racially segregated seating on public transportation in the first place? "Racism" some will say -- and there was certainly plenty of racism in the South, going back for centuries. But racially segregated seating on streetcars and buses in the South did not go back for centuries.

Far from existing from time immemorial, as many have assumed, racially segregated seating in public transportation began in the South in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Those who see government as the solution to social problems may be surprised to learn that it was government which created this problem. Many, if not most, municipal transit systems were privately owned in the 19th century and the private owners of these systems had no incentive to segregate the races.

These owners may have been racists themselves but they were in business to make a profit -- and you don't make a profit by alienating a lot of your customers. There was not enough market demand for Jim Crow seating on municipal transit to bring it about.

It was politics that segregated the races because the incentives of the political process are different from the incentives of the economic process. Both blacks and whites spent money to ride the buses but, after the disenfranchisement of black voters in the late 19th and early 20th century, only whites counted in the political process.

It was not necessary for an overwhelming majority of the white voters to demand racial segregation. If some did and the others didn't care, that was sufficient politically, because what blacks wanted did not count politically after they lost the vote.

The incentives of the economic system and the incentives of the political system were not only different, they clashed. Private owners of streetcar, bus, and railroad companies in the South lobbied against the Jim Crow laws while these laws were being written, challenged them in the courts after the laws were passed, and then dragged their feet in enforcing those laws after they were upheld by the courts.

There's more here:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/Co..._27_05_TS.html

I'm gonna have to watch it. My posts are getting as long as yours. JK. Haha.

[travestyny]

Excellent response, man. Yeah, the hostility toward black Americans obviously was in full force in those days. I'm definitely glad the country has moved past this.

It's interesting. Obviously the problem was awful. I've been reading up on some Thoas Sowell comments over this time. He would not argue against how bad it was of course, but he does seem to point the blame at government interference in the Jim Crow era. A little food for thought:

The death of Rosa Parks has reminded us of her place in history, as the black woman whose refusal to give up her seat on a bus to a white man, in accordance with the Jim Crow laws of Alabama, became the spark that ignited the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

Most people do not know the rest of the story, however. Why was there racially segregated seating on public transportation in the first place? "Racism" some will say -- and there was certainly plenty of racism in the South, going back for centuries. But racially segregated seating on streetcars and buses in the South did not go back for centuries.

Far from existing from time immemorial, as many have assumed, racially segregated seating in public transportation began in the South in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Those who see government as the solution to social problems may be surprised to learn that it was government which created this problem. Many, if not most, municipal transit systems were privately owned in the 19th century and the private owners of these systems had no incentive to segregate the races.

These owners may have been racists themselves but they were in business to make a profit -- and you don't make a profit by alienating a lot of your customers. There was not enough market demand for Jim Crow seating on municipal transit to bring it about.

It was politics that segregated the races because the incentives of the political process are different from the incentives of the economic process. Both blacks and whites spent money to ride the buses but, after the disenfranchisement of black voters in the late 19th and early 20th century, only whites counted in the political process.

It was not necessary for an overwhelming majority of the white voters to demand racial segregation. If some did and the others didn't care, that was sufficient politically, because what blacks wanted did not count politically after they lost the vote.

The incentives of the economic system and the incentives of the political system were not only different, they clashed. Private owners of streetcar, bus, and railroad companies in the South lobbied against the Jim Crow laws while these laws were being written, challenged them in the courts after the laws were passed, and then dragged their feet in enforcing those laws after they were upheld by the courts.

There's more here:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/Co..._27_05_TS.html

I'm gonna have to watch it. My posts are getting as long as yours. JK. Haha.

LOL. Good stuff man! You're finding some interesting things. Not to make light of this...I'd never do that with regards to this topic, but this part of your link made me giggle a bit....

Initially, segregation meant that whites could not sit in the black section of a bus any more than blacks could sit in the white section. But whites who were forced to stand when there were still empty seats in the black section objected. That's when the rule was imposed that blacks had to give up their seats to whites.

lol. White people were like...nah, my feet are tired. We need to tweak this system