General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould the US provide reparations for slavery and Jim Crow?
The debate over reparations in the United States began even before slavery ended in 1865.
It continues today. The overwhelming majority of academics studying the issue have supported the calls for compensating black Americans for the centuries of chattel slavery and the 100 years of lynching, mob violence and open exclusion from public and private benefits like housing, health care, voting, political office and education that occurred during the Jim Crow era.
Despite this academic support, the nation is arguably no closer to consensus on this issue than it was 150 years ago. Not surprisingly, my research has shown that the idea remains widely unpopular with white Americans and overwhelmingly supported by African-Americans.
MORE HERE: http://yonside.com/us-provide-reparations-slavery-jim-crow2/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)It's not one thing or the other.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)
apnu
(8,756 posts)They were slaughtered wholesale, yet nobody ever talks about it. Whereas slavery reparations come up every election year.
They have a really good point. If reparations are on the table, why are we not including Native Americans, why only African Americans?
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)... is not the same as excluding other things that ought to be advocated for.
If you want to know if the writer of the article feels about compensation for Native Americans, you might want to contact him. This article did not address that issue, so we can make no assumptions about his views on the topic.
apnu
(8,756 posts)But the question is a good one, why do we advocate for one group but ignore others? The injustice Africans faced in America is the same injustice as Native Americans. This is something we on the left struggle with. We pick out one thing and push for it, but ignore others. In our rush to be inclusive we wind up excluding. And tony's point is right on that mark. We, the general lift, tend not think of justice in a way that applies to everybody. I see talk about racial injustice to African Americans, or Latinos, or Asians, or Native Americans. Not African Americans AND Latinos AND Asians AND Native Americans AND Women AND so on.
We continue to compartmentalize and divide groups among ourselves and by doing so we continue the injustice because we do not see human beings as human beings. Until we get there, any progress will come in fits and starts.
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)A guy was talking to me about Black Lives Matter. He kept asking why they focus so much on police shootings. He said that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the people organizing BLM didn't give a crap about gang violence, domestic abuse and other kinds of violence that affect the black community and other communities.
I thought that was a stretch.
I think it's perfectly alright sometimes to shine a light on something specific. I don't think that implies that other things are not important or less important.
apnu
(8,756 posts)BLM does give a crap about gang violence and other issues, but they know they can't get justice until the organs of justice are functioning. Sadly, the police are killing African Americans at an alarming rate and the rest of the country yawns about it. Hence "Black Lives Matter" They do matter. In every BLM conversation I've had with BLM people there has been a palpable frustration at all this and they make it very clear that police violence is the tip of the iceberg they're trying to move.
The "all lives matter" counter protest to BLM is blatantly racist. Its a "sit down and shut up" statement robbing an oppressed group of their voice. It is vile and disgusting and when I hear it, I shut it down. Whites tend to listen up better when one of their own speaks up, as I've done in the past and continue to do today.
You are right, it is fine to shine on something specific. I'm just trying to point out that on the left we can and do get caught up in specific causes and forget to look at the big picture. I'm sorry if I triggered a bad ALM memory, that was not my intention. My intention was to speak of injustice in general and be inclusive in our battle for justice.
We should all be allies in this. I hope for a time when these various groups and communities join together and fight for justice. I think its happening right now, but slowly. As I look at pictures and videos of protests I'm seeing a more and more mixed group. Race, religion and gender are becoming meaningless and that's a good thing. Every day brings us closer to Dr. King's Dream.
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)
eShirl
(18,491 posts)
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)you just don't want to entertain that idea either.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Long long over due. Every family of a slave deserves the acknowledgement. Free college for all families of those once owned by another human. And I mean free for the entire course through PH.D. free meal p!an, free tuition, free housing. And all schools MUST accept them!
Yeah I like that. Those who were slaves were denied education even the right to read. Free education seems fair!
Ohhh and free preschools and more money, books, art, music to inner city schools so the children can get into college!!
If college is not their scene than free trade school!
And set all people of color in jail because of the war on drugs free from prison! All of them! Today!
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Would he or she still get all of your proposed benefits, or half of them, or none of them?
ret5hd
(20,491 posts)Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Of course! Don't be silly. We should have done it a long time ago. Another Hillary Supporter against fairness.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)
Sen. Prescott Bush (right), father and grandfather to presidents, sharing a moment and a bit o' information in this small world, back in the day with the head of one of the richest families in the world, Baron de Rothschild (left).
Rothschild and Freshfields founders’ had links to slavery, papers reveal
By Carola Hoyos
Financial Times
Two of the biggest names in the City of London had previously undisclosed links to slavery in the British colonies, documents seen by the Financial Times have revealed.
Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the banking family’s 19th-century patriarch, and James William Freshfield, founder of Freshfields, the top City law firm, benefited financially from slavery, records from the National Archives show, even though both have often been portrayed as opponents of slavery.
Far from being a matter of distant history, slavery remains a highly contentious issue in the US, where Rothschild and Freshfields are both active.
Companies alleged to have links to past slave injustices have come under pressure to make restitution.
JPMorgan, the investment bank, set up a $5m scholarship fund for black students studying in Louisiana after apologising in 2005 for the company’s historic links to slavery.
CONTINUED (with registration, etc) ...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c0f5014-628c-11de-b1c9-00144feabdc0.html
The same group of people who hold themselves superior to others profited from the relationship for centuries, creating a world of riches. Least the heirs can do, reparations.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)You know all of us Americans. You remember us!
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)In stating there is no consensus on the issue. There is a consensus on the issue among Americans. A few people disagree with that consensus and pretend it does not exist.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)...that I don't believe you, but you can't expect others to take your word for it. It is customary to provide some sort of link or source when making such a statement or claim.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)And I know what that is worth😏
But my opinion is informed but the fact that DU is the only place I hear reparations discussed. And while there is no consensus in our little community here, that hardly translated to society as a whole.
But who knows, perhaps the is a quite groundswell of support of the issue I am not aware of.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)...economy?
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Assuming it would be one big payout. Those who manage ok now would be greatly helped but many folks would spend thru it just like most people do when they get a wind fall.
That is one of the many reasons I oppose it. What I would like to see instead is an expanded social security and Medicare, much greater investment in infrastructure and education and greatly strengthened workers rights. Then everyone can look forward to a better future.
brush
(53,776 posts)If done sensibly, reparations could be a llong time boon to the economy, and thus benefit everyone.
Response to LuckyTheDog (Original post)
snot This message was self-deleted by its author.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)Are black people still shot in the streets by police? Are they corralled into bad neighborhoods? Is unemployment higher among them? Do they trail in educational opportunities? Are they disproportionately represented in prisons? Are they still treated as second-class citizens? Are districts gerrymandered to reduce their representation in government?
If the answer to any single one of those problems is yes, then it means the United States is guilty of permitting African-Americans to be unfairly treated. If the answer is yes to most or all of those questions, it means that African-Americans have been deliberately treated unfairly.
Deliberately treated unfairly by the United States, God damn it! We should be ashamed of ourselves.
Our nation has a duty to level the playing field and end this unfair treatment. Reparations may be one of many ways that things need to change positively for African Americans. If we commit to doing it, this question goes away. If we don't, it continues to float around, year after year.
As long as the question persists, the answer is obvious.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)sofa king
(10,857 posts)... about the specific and highly technical issue of slave reparations than I am about the more general issue of equalization. That is why I said reparations can be one part of an overall approach to leveling the playing field.
However, because all African-Americans have been inequitably treated, I think it is fair to say that they are all inheritors of the unfortunate legacy of slavery, as are the rest of us to some degree.
In that moral--very much not legal--sense, slavery continues to be a bane to all Americans.
brush
(53,776 posts)See post #9.
brush
(53,776 posts)No checks being cut to individuals, no monetary handouts, but funds for inner-city job training, small business training and grants, upgrading and modernization of neighborhood schools, computer literacy training, college funding for eligible students, community youth facilities, and something needs to be done about racist cops so how about sensitivity training and requirements that a good percentage of cops live in the areas they patrol?
How would it be decided who would benefit from these and other sensible programs that are not coming to mind right now? There is a precedent, the Dawes Rolls established lineage and proof of being Native American back in the day. The same kind of research can be done to establish descendency from the enslaved, unpaid millions in the country's shameful past.
Now back to the point of my article title: If the stolen wages of hundreds of years of dawn-to-dust, uncompensated labor done by millions of people was tallied, even at minimum wage levels, with the principle of compounding factored in, if that figure came due, it would bust the US treasury (and that's just the slavery era, not even going into the decades of Jim Crow racism, the lynchings, the job and housing discrimination, and on and on and on). We couldn't come up with that amount of trillions so the programs I listed above would be a huge bargain.
Hell, just a small percentage shifted from our humongous, on-steroids military budget could easily cover the costs. I'm talking no tax increases and nothing out of anyone's pocket.
It needs to be done. The country needs to deal with this issue that it has been shamefully sweeping under the rug for years.
It's just. Germany compensated holocaust victims and descendants, as did our own country compensate the unjustly interned Japanese-Americans during WWll.
We have to get past the mindset of many that other ethnic groups deserve compensation for historical injustices but African Americans, forget it.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)I doubt that the majority of Americans agree. Neither of the leading presidential candidates support reparations, a proposal to implement reparations would be laughed out of congress.
Maybe it would be more productive to talk about economic policies that would actually create long term jobs for African Americans.
brush
(53,776 posts)TrappedInUtah
(87 posts)It would probably exceed the yearly GDP of our country to pay back meaningful reparations to Native Americans and African Americans. A better plan would be to work at improving poverty stricken neighborhoods and to stop locking black people in prison due to the war on drugs.
Igel
(35,300 posts)Most of the wealth would have been lost isn't he depression.
Most of the profit from slavery was. Those companies with ancestors that were slave-owning mostly were bought at fire-sale prices as they went under.
Count that as paid and lost.
brush
(53,776 posts)Slavery was uncompensated labor — stolen wages for millions over centuries.
See post #9.
If those programs were implemented it would be a boon to the entire economy as funds would flow into and out of the AA community.
brush
(53,776 posts)Plus, if done correctly, it could create a long-time boon in the economy, what with all the money circulating in the entire economy from all the programs created.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)No thanks.
hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)Puts it into perspective, doesn't it?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)
kwassa
(23,340 posts)and Clarence Thomas is hardly typical of anything anywhere.
JI7
(89,249 posts)After killing others while driving drunk
Waldorf
(654 posts)JI7
(89,249 posts)
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)it's just like "no free college tuition because Trump's kids might get free tuition". #Clintonism.
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)In New Zealand, where the Crown has settled claims with Maori iwi who were illegally dispossesed of land, the money/land grants go into a trust managed by the iwi who then invests the money/develops the land on behalf of the iwi and puts the profits into funding community programmes.
So why not "pay reparations" by doubling the funding of schools in minority neighbourhoods, offering scholarships, subsidising housing, creating programmes to end police brutality, providing alternative rehabilitation programme to jails for young people.
There are all kinds of ways the US could at least try to make amends for a pretty shameful history that was still going on within the lifetimes of people around today without cutting Clarence Thomas a check.
brush
(53,776 posts)I posted similar views in post #9.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)She doesn't think it's fair for Donald Trump's kids to go to college for free.
Or Reagan's portrait of a welfare queen.
Bottom-of-the-barrel demagoguery.
Oh, and by the way, Bernie's health care plan is going to raise your taxes! Ooga-booga!!
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)And again triangulates away from the point of the OP and demonstrates why everyone should suffer cause someone they judge icky gets it.
Who cares if Thompson gets reparations - maybe the reason he is an asshat is because of the 100s of years of treatment of people of color.
brush
(53,776 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Hell, everyone in this country can point to an ancestor that was treated unfairly.
My own ancestors came to this country in chains as part of a English penal colony and worked until they escaped.
Those generations are long dead and gone and I don't buy the biblical "sins of the father are passed down seven generations" crap. So, no, I am not looking for a check. Nor am I willing to pay for someone else's check. Neither me getting a check or paying for one is fair.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Last edited Tue May 10, 2016, 12:50 PM - Edit history (1)
being obvious to the 200 years of economic deprivation that African Americans have endured.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)By being aware, it helps make sure those injustices don't occur again, and we enact/enforce anti-discrimination laws in our society.
It doesn't mean paying the descendants of past injustices. Current generations being paid / paying for crimes of previous generations, is something I don't agree with.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Your ancestors were not held as slaves for hundreds of years, nor the impoverished descendants segregated out of society by law until the mid 1960s, and denied the opportunity of equality, with all the social ills that attend that.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)However, my point of having Current generations being paid / paying for crimes of previous generations, still stands.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Racism isn't over, history is a continuum whose past actions are still in effect today. Segregation was federal policy into the sixties, many alive have been directly affected by discrimination both directly and indirectly. The poverty and lack of equity created by hundreds of years of racism is still with us today, as well as many forms of institutionalized discrimination.
There are many reasons for reparations, and reparations can take many forms.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)I guess we should also pay reparations to all women because sexism limited their opportunities in the past and sexism/unequal pay still exists too?
Add in the systematic poverty of Appalachia, don't they deserve reparations too?
All of which goes back to my OP that there are many people in this country today that have faced historical injustices. Should we try to pay everyone reparations? or only blacks?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Where did you come up with that?
Neither women or Appalachians were held as slaves. Nor were they decimated, like the Native Americans.
I would say both African-Americans and Native Americans have excellent cases for reparations.
When I say reparations, I am not talking about a mere gift of money. I see reparations as more taking the form of programs and investment in poor African-American and Native American communities. An investment, as it were.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Since no one alive was a slave and no one alive was a slaveholder, and sins of the father are only passed down to subsequent generations in the bible, not the constitution.
Luckily, reparations will never happen.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I am talking current sins, not past sins. I think my post flew right over your head.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)That is YOUR quoted reason for why blacks deserve reparations and not women or other groups that suffer current sins.
If anything, you can't keep rationalizations straight.
If reparations are due only for current sins, then the line up of people who are owed them increases exponentially and can't be limited to just blacks (add in sexism reparations, regional reparations, new immigrant reparations, etc.)
If the case for reparations is for slavery, then there really is no case at all since all participants in that injustice died out generations ago.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Slavery created current conditions. It is a historical racist continuum, from slavery through the terrorism of Jim Crow, right up to the current day. Blacks lived in near-slavery conditions after slavery was officially and terrorized out of their new constitutional rights by white supremacists.
This history is unique, and does not apply to women, or people who lived in the Appalachians. The oppression of slavery did not end with slavery.
This is the difference between you and me. I see that American society has a collective duty to right a historic and racist wrong; you don't see a collective responsibility, you don't see the modern results of past oppression creating current poverty. I've given you examples but you ignore them. You mount a specious argument that others are equally oppressed as groups, when they are not.
I suggest you read "The Case for Reparations" by Ta-Nehisi Coates, it might help you understand the issues better.
brush
(53,776 posts)Why are you on a progressive board? You sound alarmingly like a right winger.
See posts #9 and #59.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Just like I'm "close minded" to religion and I'm an atheist. I'm on a progressive board because I form my positions based on data and logic and try not to be swayed by emotions.
I would propose solutions to help all underprivileged people. It doesn't matter to someone to trying to feed their hungry children if their ancestors were slaves or millionaires. You are proposing a solution where we help only one group as the other groups are considered "unworthy" which is a typical RW attitude.
Why are you on a progressive board when you are segregating and categorizing the poor?
brush
(53,776 posts)It didn't just segregate Native Americans on reservations, it slaughtered them by the hundreds of thousands.
If you don't see those things as injustices that need to be remedied, I feel sorry for you.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)We don't live by the biblical rules of "sins of the father are passed down seven generations".
I feel sorry for you too but because you are so irrational.
brush
(53,776 posts)slavery, and Native Americans are not still suffering from the legacy of genocide?
You call that being logical?
The US government saw fit to compensate Japanese Americans because of internment. Germany saw fit to compensate Jewish people because of the horrors of the holocaust but some here can't get their minds around compensating African Americans for centuries of stolen labor or Native Americans for slaughter of their ancestors.
You consider it illogical but the governments of the US and Germany didn't in similar instances.
Why is that? No one is advocating checks being cut to individuals but funds for programs the will actually flow into the larger economy and thus benefit not just African Americans and Native Americans but everyone as the influx of funds flows into the larger economy.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Again, there are no living slaves.
brush
(53,776 posts)slaughter Native Americans that still live.
What about the survivors of the millions of holocaust victims who were compensated by Germany?
Just admit it, you don't want to see African Americans compensated for the hundreds of years of labor stolen from their ancestors.
Ok for the interment and holocaust victims but not for AAs and Native Americans. Let us know where you're really coming from.
The US ONLY compensated the living Japanese Americans that experienced interment, not their descendants. The US is applying the same rule to slavery as they should.
You don't understand the concepts of what you are arguing. Learn your topics and precedents before I waste any more time
brush
(53,776 posts)And thanks for the condescending, "I don't understand the concept . . ." bs.
If you don't understand that the US not compensating African Americans and Native Americans for horrendous injustices while Germany compensated holocaust descendants is very possibly tied to the racism that this country has shown continuously towards those two demographics segments, is what I call the height of not understanding — or maybe not wanting to pull your head out of the sand.
brush
(53,776 posts)See posts #9 and #59.
The programs, if implemented would be an economic boon as funds flowing into the AA community would flow out to businesses in the larger economy.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)You are proposing one definition of a solution. Do you have any data to support that solution is what all AA community members will accept?
If so, provide a link with the data.
Your opinion is just a straw man solution without any credibility right now.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Response to LuckyTheDog (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)What amount of money could really compensate for slavery?
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)It doesn't have to be cash payments to individuals - at least not when it comes to compensating for slavery.
I like what the writer proposed in the article.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Blacks still trail far behind majority white economically. Reparations should be used to bring the a bit closer to equality.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)Based upon some of the responses - have a 
or two or three. 
Nope.
But if there is ever a major 'social redistribution of wealth' as has been proposed in this election - if you were black on the 2010 census I proposed several times at DU you should be able to 'benefit' - but you and your children/descendents should remain at 2016 tax rates for 36 years. Fair is fair.
Makes up for the head start in the 'Raw Deal for Black Americans' aka the New Deal for White Americans where for 36 years white Americans got a head start. For black Americans that impacted our families in the here and now (my dad was born in 1941 - his parents at the turn of the last century) and it still resonates today.
It's why when I kept reading we 'need a New New Deal' 
at DU for several months I was going bonkers.
I understood the sentiment - but if you are a black American home owner who has put in thousands and thousands of dollars in a historic home that was beyond a shadow of a doubt a 'red lined' home -
All I heard was "you are going to sieze my home and give it to the poor white single mother" that Nye Bevan mentioned above. (I had a scaredy cat moment! )
Because I dunno - it makes things better for her - when she didn't earn it or work for it. Hmmm. Sound familiar?
Here's more 'familiar' . . . And truthfully - it's not "my fault her parents or grandparents didn't take advantage of FDR's money grab from all but distribution and access to opportunity for 'some' and were not able to hand down to her intergenerational wealth".
See black Americans can have the same attitude as white Americans. I.E.: It's not my problem what happened 10 years ago that put that white single mother in the position she is in. Or in 1980. Or in 1960. It's not fair to me that I should have my stuff taken to give it to her.
It kind of changes the narrative a bit - but hopefull it gave you (O.P.) a giggle
scscholar
(2,902 posts)If logic says no, and it certainly does, then no. But of course those people don't understand logic. Of course if they did, they wouldn't be that way in the first place.
Ready4Change
(6,736 posts)The logistics of slavery reparations are impossible. Who gets how much? Calculations back over how many generations? Should a person related to a child born of a slave but fathered by the slave owner get a full amount or half? In the 7, let's say, generations since the abolishment of slavery what if that person had a total of 12 white parents and 2 black? 7 and 7? What if some of those parents were also a mix?
And that's before we even attempt to tackle the question of how much is due? How much should have been paid back in the day? What would that be in todays dollars? What of the living conditions the relatives have been in since? Should there be reparations for that? What if someones ancestors lived in poverty for 5 generations, then generation 6 managed to amass great wealth and the current generation is now in the top 5%? Or the billions of other unique, individual combinations?
I just don't think it's possible to resolve reparations in a way that will sit well with most people.
But something should be done. I think it's obvious that the freed slaves were dumped onto the lowest rungs of society, and the mindsets of dominant elements of society kept them there. The aftershocks of that starting position and later treatment are still reflected today, where blacks are over represented in the demographics of the poor. Efforts need to be made to make vibrant blighted areas, and to properly educate those who have been getting short shrift for more than a century. Efforts need to be made to ensure that future innocent generations won't continue paying the price for our callous nations past.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I do know that we should stop committing more of them.
Perhaps before calling for reparations we should overhaul our obscene criminal justice system, dismantle our military-police state, hold police officers accountable for racial violence, and restore civil liberties.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)loans. Then we could build our economic base and not have to protest. We could hire black lawyers and buy politicians like other groups.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)platform, and I support the idea 100%.
Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote a very compelling justification for reparations (see here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/). I agree with his reasoning. However, I do not know how feasible it would be to implement a reparations program. I certainly wouldn't oppose it on ideological grounds.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)There is no way to implement it equitably, nor is there any reason to deal with it now.
1. Who is going to pay, and how? Is it going to be a tax? Is it going to be a seizure of assets? Are the poor descendants of wealthy slave-owners going to pay more, or are the wealthy descendants of poor non-slave-owning people going to pay more? Is the money going to be soured from all non-blacks, or just whites? All whites to include those who arrived way after slavery was over, or just some whites? Would there have to be a genealogical accounting for this as well? How much is it going to be, and based on that number, how are we going to come up with the money? We can't just print it.
2.Who gets it? Only those who can prove a direct genealogical link to slavery? All blacks, as some argue that the reason for reparations isn't for slavery necessarily, but to offset black shortcomings relative to whites since then that were caused by slavery? Is the amount prorated based on genetic percentage of African DNA? Are white-appearing people with African DNA going to get anything? As white-passing, they theoretically don't experience the hardships of other blacks, which some see as a reason for which to give them reparations. Do children get it?
3.How long are the reparations payed? This current generation of those alive? The next generation? All subsequent generations? In 500 years, there is a good chance 99%+ of the citizenry would be getting reparations due to genetic inclusion, if that's how it's done. Are we going to be paying ourselves then?
4. What form would it take? Is it a lump-sum, a monthly check, a tax exemption for all time, free-something or other (College, house, whatever).
5. Once it's done, are the wrongs of the past rectified and settled? If no, then what was really the point?
No, I don't support reparations for things that happened before your lifetime. Not from the Romans to the Gauls, not from the US to Blacks, not from the Turks to the Armenians (Are there still some alive from that?), not from the British to the Boers, not from the Vatican to the middle east, Not from the North African and Arabian peninsula slave raiders to the southern Europeans, not from the Egyptians and countless other ancient empires to the Jews, etc. If you are living today and the injustice you received has been acknowledged, then I suppose there is still time. Outside of that, you're just going to be chasing that ball of string down the hall of history and practicality for all of time. Pass.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)It takes a good sounding idea, and adds more and more variables that would complicate the implementation of that idea. Which is what more ideas need to go through. The human imagination is basically limitless, but we exist in physical reality.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Well done.
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)Nobody is talking about seizing assets of white people and handing those assets over to black people.
And the questions you asked indicate that you didn't bother to read the article. You are not responding to what was posted. You are just being argumentative by building a small army of straw men.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)
linuxman
(2,337 posts)The issue is bigger than the point in the article, last I checked. I addressed the issues that are more often discussed regarding it. Sorry I didn't discuss the subject in your narrowly defined little lane of acceptable discourse.
Please forgive my impudence, arbiter of the discussion.
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)... I wish you would not attribute positions to me (or the author of the article) and then argue against them. It'd be more productive to actually respond to the positions that are stated.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Notably when you write
Unless you want taxes on blacks to help fund reparations to blacks, you would need white-only taxes = seizing assets of white people
You saw straw (men) in the eye of linuxman, forgetting about the proverbial beam..
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)But, no. Nobody is recommending whites-only taxes or directly seizing assets from white people and handing them over to black people. So countering those "arguments" meets the definition of creating a straw men.
Do I "want taxes on blacks to help fund reparations to blacks"? To the degree that every penny in the US Treasury is commingled and not separated into accounts labeled "from white people" and "from black people," I suppose some reparation would include taxes paid by black people. To suggest that it would cause a huge moral dilemma is kind of silly.
I suggest you and linuxman actually take a few minutes to read what you are commenting on.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)- He's half white.
- And would Italian-Americans have to pay to Egyptian-Americans for the slaves the Romans took in Egypt?
As linuxman said, it's endless.
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)... If you read the article (clearly you didn't), the author was not talking about compensatory payments to anyone as reparations for slavery. He did say, however, those who suffered under Jim Crow (a lot of them are still alive) might be owed some compensation.
Again, I really think that reading the article would help you to avoid asking these off-topic questions.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)I asked about Obama asking if he (in your words) "might be owed some compensation"
And my generalisation to the grievances of antiquity is meant to ask you: why reparations for Jim Crow only? Where does this idea stop? Reparations from the US to the Philippines? Why not? From Algeria to the US for the Barbary Wars? Why not?
The concept of reparations for history is unsound.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)a tax on academics to pay for reparations.
melm00se
(4,992 posts)and if the desired end result does not occur, then what? Repeat?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Takket
(21,565 posts)The following site has polling data America's feelings about reparations.
59% of blacks and 6% of whites favor cash payouts.
https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/06/02/reparations/
JI7
(89,249 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)family to get something that a white family doesn't also get.
If you're assuming that reparations are solely a cash payout, you are not correct. Yes, there are some who feel that reparations should be a cash payout, however not everyone feels this way. Reparations can take many forms. The definition of reparation is: the act of making amends, offering expiation, or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury - Webster
I am a descendant of slaves. I seek no cash payout. Ever. However, I do feel that the United States could do a whole lot in regards to reparation for slavery, and Jim Crow. Would a form of reparation, in ensuring that our public and private education include a bit more than the ever so slim 1/2 a chapter in social studies on the topic of slavery be acceptable? Remember that one history book that called the population increase due to slavery as a "Pattern of Immigration"? How about African American children not being subject to attending public schools named after the very Confederates that fought to enslave them? Perhaps honoring the slaves that help build this nation into what it is today? Could we try a little harder to humanize the institution that was slavery, and the following century of laws, policies, and attitudes towards the black community? Would this be out of line?
But perhaps it is too much to ask that there be more education, or for the country to accept it's dark past by acknowledging it. Can't have a slavery monument, because it gives white folks a sad. Can't educate folks on the "Cornerstone Speech", because they may realize that flag ain't really about Southern Pride and state's rights. We don't want to step on the toes of the socially dominant. They're quite content where they are.
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)What you said.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)There is no one to make amends to or give satisfaction to...
All dead...
There is no one who imposed the system on them still living either...
Are we going back to biblical days where the sins of the father are put upon the son? Great great great grandson in this case...
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)One is still kicking.
Just sayin'
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Let's also present broader yet less known facts:
• that in terms of duration, slavery existed between the years 700 and 1500 in which Europeans had no part, the slave traders being Africans and Arabs
• that in terms of numbers worldwide in the last millenium , the biggest enslavers were Muslim tradesmen first, Africans themselves second and Europeans third
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)One of the big issues, is that when trying to address our history, folks end up having sad, so we try to bury the past, and forget it. But there is a lot of truth in the statement: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
To some, the African people who were brought here against their will, were simply slaves. A horrible truth, and a despicable existence for these people. But that's where it ends. It is an icky part of our past, and folks try to brush it off as ancient history, and we should simply move on. But its larger than that.
Here in America, we receive tons of education on American history. Our founding fathers, the wars we've been a part of, our Constitution and what it meant back then, and what it means today. How the views of those founders meant in the context of their time, and how they can be applied today, to their great courage and sacrifices they made to give birth to this nation.
The slave trade here in the US is mentioned, but rarely in it's broad context. What impact did the African slaves have on not just the southern states, but also the northern? What happened post Civil War? How did the entire union, not just the south treat its own citizens in a post-slavery era? Why did it take until well into the 20th century for civil rights for the African American movement to gain traction? What were the lasting and still lingering effects? These question are rarely (if ever), mentioned in our public schools.
We have states that fly a flag, on the very ground where all the people are supposed to be represented. A flag, under which marched those who fought for slavery, who fought to deny the very rights outlined in our nation's founding documents. Those same grounds where a monument to the "great" treasonous generals stands. The very same grounds where tens of thousands of citizens petitioned to remove another monument, but this one was of the African slaves. Because it gives them a sad.
As long as white people have a sad, there will be nothing done. Racial subordination will continue, as we are doomed to continue repeating the past we struggle ever so hard to forget.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)History is taught in a very provincial way: centering the subject on the US as much as it is done at the expense of world history breeds nationalism (dare I say jingoism?). In my view of a wide-angle teaching of history, the facts I gave you about the broader history of slavery would fit in naturally.
The point where we differ is that you feel the US caucasian plurality 'sadz' over slavery as a trifle. I see it as shaming whole new generations of things which used to fit in a pattern at a point of time and for which the new generations should not be shamed. It's neither fair, nor conducive to racial harmony.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Last edited Thu May 12, 2016, 01:20 PM - Edit history (1)
would petition to have an African American Monument removed from state grounds?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Here's an interesting notion:
Instead of cash reparations, give every black American 5/3 of a vote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/instead-of-cash-reparations-give-every-black-american-53-of-a-vote/2015/08/21/80d9723e-45aa-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)BUT the former confederate states SHOULD be forced to pay reparations.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Which states had Jim Crow laws? Note the correlation between the two.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Last edited Wed May 11, 2016, 03:14 PM - Edit history (1)
Arizona:
1865 - 1956: Miscegenation
1909 - 1962: Segregation
California: (almost too many to mention, Cliff's notes)
1866-1947: Segregation
1880: Miscegenation
1894: Voter rights
1945: Miscegenation
Colorado:
1864: Miscegenation
1908: Miscegenation
1930: Miscegenation (they really didn't want mixed races...)
Connecticut:
1879: Military Segregation
1935: Segregation
Illinois:
1927: Racially restrictive housing covenants
Indiana:
1869: Segregation
1905: Miscegenation
1952: Miscegenation
1955: Adoption
Kansas:
1865: Segregation (part of their constitution), remained in effect almost 100 years
Kentucky:
A shit-ton of laws all written between the end of the Civil War, the last one enacted in 1960
Maryland:
1904: Segregation
Etc... These laws, all post Civil War also existed in Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. These were not laws that were isolated to just the old Confederacy.
Also, let's not forget the Federal Government while we are at it... You know, those who fought the war to end slavery... Segregation policies all throughout the civil services. Especially in the military... Segregated, and paid on a different scale.
Many of these laws, and policies were still on the books well into my parents lifetimes, as well as some lingering into today. Without any reparations, we are doomed to repeat the past... Today we call it Voter-ID, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, and the "tough on crime" legislation of the '90's.
So you can wash your hands, and state that the Federal Government paid all reparations by fighting a war to end slavery (or was it to preserve the union?). You just have to do this with the realization that the Federal Government turned a blind eye to these laws, even enacting their own policies, and sat in complete complaisance in Jim Crow laws and all that came of it.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)I have read in my year or so reading DU
If it was sarcasm that went over my head I apologize buy sadly I think it serious.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Which states had slaves?
Do the math.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Inscribed in the Constitution every state lived under. It's quite possible more money from slavery was made for the north than the south. All those textile mills in the New England were spinning cotton raised by slaves. And the shipping magnates of new England in the mid Atlantic states got their start transporting slaves from Africa.
And taking out money from the poorest part of the country with the highest percentage of African Americans hardly seems the way to help the descendants of slaves. But you already know that.
Your post is really about the fact that the south is the region of the country that has prevented your beloved candidate from winning the nomination. The irony is it was the African-American voters that made that happen.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The former confederate states. The US government intervened to end it, at a cost of 620,000 lives.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)But since reparations will never happen it is really an academic discussion.
But I will play along with you scheme with a question. What about KY, MD, RI and MO. All slave states that did not join the Confederacy but never released their slaves till the 13 amendment went thru. And all voted against it. Are they on the hook?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)So the New England and mid Atlantic states all allowed slavery until 1780 in Pennsylvania and around 1800 in New Jersey and New York. But these were not hard emancipation and there were slaves later than this time. Do they get a pass?
And I must apologize to Rhode Island which in my last post I stated had slaves at the time of the Civil War. I mixed up one small state for another and actually meant Delaware. Bourbon will do that.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Pretty simple
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)And what about States that had no choice. The United States bought both Florida and Louisiana from Spain and France respectively. Neither allowed slavery but the US, not the south, forced it upon them. Florida at the time was a refuge for runaway slaves that the Spanish protected. Why should these two states be forced to pay reparations for something they did not want?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Ever heard of the Confederacy?
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)I know it gets complicated. But you have already stated if they were slaves then the state should pay. What I am trying to make you see is that all of America profited from slavery regardless of where you live.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)I am quite clear.
There is no 'complicated' to it. If a state allowed slaves, it pays reparations. The whole confederacy and a few other states.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)The Union fought to preserve the United States, not to end slavery.
The Confederacy fought for its independence, not to preserve slavery.
The only thing that made the Civil War about slavery was that the Confederate states cited slavery and white supremacy as the reason for seceding from the United States in the first place.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Sure there is inequality, but sending out checks (from which magical unicorn's account I don't know) would cause a violent civil war. You think racism exploded when a black (half) president was elected, what do you think poor, angry, gun toting white people would do when they saw an entire race receiving checks?
Reparations are a silly issue to even ponder and add to the backlash against the perceived white liberal elites who ponder nonsense and wet the bed over ridiculous issues like this.
Let's join reality and stop wasting time and energy on this insanity.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Not in the least.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)If it was going to happen, it would have had to happen many, many, many years ago.
Today, it's just simply not going to work. Many of corporations that benefited from slavery are now either merged into something else or they went bankrupt long ago (many of them washed out in the Great Depression). Same with many families that benefited. They are long gone...and so is the money.
The people who actually committed the atrocities and benefited from them are gone. There is no way to punish them anymore.
America is also made up of many immigrants. Many families today in America had no relatives during the time of slavery. Their ancestors had nothing to do with it.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)And for everyone freaking out about "How, who, why, how much??11" Conyers has been trying to get a bill passed to just study this issue for decades.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr40 <<the newest iteration.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)When the answer is obvious on its face, you can stop there.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)It doesnt mean either one has a chance of happening.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)There are better things to do with my time.
Also, is this the biggest issue currently facing the citizens of detroit?
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Systemic racism led to all the crap facing the city today--a basket of reforms and restitution for anti-Black policies in the US could help, not hurt.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Idiotic and racist at worst...
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Don't know if we can directly, but we should do some kind of reparations. Ditto for native Americans and some other groups too.
doc03
(35,332 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)some piddly amount, either. I mean significant amounts. The legacy of slavery lives on today.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)in order to contribute to a reparations fund?
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)to my near-destitute conditions. However, your response is very revealing about how you think.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)just so long as you personally don't have to pay a penny. Understood.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)making it. But it DOES need to be paid, and we, as a country, need to do it. It is over a century overdue.
Democat
(11,617 posts)But only on people who make more than they do.
Ace Rothstein
(3,162 posts)The burden then falls on the middle class who are taxed to the point of being poor.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)We are to be too selfish to right a wrong?
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)Why are we starting with gutting Social Security?
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Not going to happen anyway since there's very little support. But if we are talking reparations then we start with native Americans.
MH1
(17,600 posts)I support some level of affirmative action in job placement, education, and other opportunities as a way to partially redress the wrongs of the past.
In addition to that, a decent social safety net would go a long way to making reparations unnecessary, and would not need to be racially biased.
One factor to consider is that as individuals, LOTS of people are disadvantaged for a whole host of historical reasons, not just African Americans. The reason for some sort of redress (e.g. affirmative action) targeted at AAs is the massive SCOPE of the disenfranchisement and abuse that was heaped on AAs historically just because of race. But we should have a society where everyone who comes from a disadvantaged background, has opportunities to overcome those disadvantages.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)leadership were lost especially during jim crow. We need business grants, land grants, and education grants/scholarships and autonomy in the same way Native Americans received. It'll never happen though because liberals want to keep us dependent on them and conservatives don't care at all.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)we must absolutely stop voter suppression. We must provide income equality, fair housing, good schools, excellent health care. and we must stop voter suppression.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)how many other groups will then start seeking the same thing, which would be economically counterproductive. Even as important as minority rights, you can't keep punishing the majority for the sins of the past. This country needs unity, not more division.
Judi Lynn
(160,527 posts)to serve as parties for the racist trolls who crave any opportunity to rejoice in their whiteness and take nasty shots at human beings who aren't the same ghastly, whitish sallow color themselves.
Who could ever excuse these events, anyway?
Trolls don't need special race-baiting events to beat their chests, and clap their fellow trolls on the backs as they all try to kick the bejesus out of those they hate.
It's not ever interesting enough to read, and at the heart it's not good enough to read, either. Only ill will is meant, and that's what you get.
Damned sad.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)What would you think of describing someone's skin as a "ghastly dark brown color" or "ghastly yellow color"? How about judging people by the content of their character instead?
kiva
(4,373 posts)people refer to others in such a nasty way - "ghastly, whitish sallow color". Too bad you have such a bigoted perspective about the differences in people's appearances.
TrappedInUtah
(87 posts)I'm one of those "Ghastly white sallow beings" you speak of and I find your description somewhat offensive.
Democat
(11,617 posts)Are you sure you're on the right website?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)There are plenty of people alive today who were financially impacted by redlining, Jim Crow, GI Bill exclusions, USDA loan exclusions, USDA-directed racially-targeted farm foreclosures, etc., and they deserve compensation, yesterday.
Slavery is difficult to parse at the level of reparations (even Coates in his wonderful piece pointed this out, which is why it takes up almost no space there). There's plenty of money we need to pay, right now, to people who are still alive, at least first. I adamantly support Conyers's Commission to Study Slavery Reparations proposal, because I can't get more definite than this current paragraph until we actually do that work.
cagefreesoylentgreen
(838 posts)Logistically, how should this be accomplished?
I'm a second generation Chinese American. Should I have taxes deducted to pay for something I or my parents had nothing to do with?
I know a guy whose Japanese great grandparents emigrated to America in the late 19th century to California. Should he have taxes deducted because his American ancestry goes back farther, but still has nothing to do with black slavery?
And I also know a white woman whose Polish ancestors came through Ellis Island in the late 19th century. Should she be forced to pay because she's white, although she and her ancestors have nothing to do with black slavery?
How much bureaucracy do you want to create to check the ancestry of every black and white American to make sure that they do or do not have slaves or slave-owners in their family tree?
Furthermore, is the government investigating everyone's family tree a violation of privacy? Good luck with that in court.
And speaking of reparations, how about giving reparations to all the millions of Mexicans who had their land taken away (not to mention the thousands also massacred) by the Polk Administration in the 1840s to create California, Arizona, et al?
At some point, this gets ridiculous.
Zing Zing Zingbah
(6,496 posts)I'm white, but I know my family did not come to this country until after the civil war... the late 1800's early 1900's was when they all cam over. Same for my husband's family too. Before then they were either Canadian, French, German or Polish.
TrappedInUtah
(87 posts)What about brown people from the Polynesian Islands? Black refugees from africa and the middle east? Who should pay? Should I pay just because I'm white despite the fact that I never mistreated a black person in any way? My great grandparents came over from Holland and France in the late 1800's I think. Nothing to do with slavery. There's simply no practical or just way to do reparations.
Zing Zing Zingbah
(6,496 posts)I'm certain we have many black people living in this country today who are not descendants of the black slaves in the south. Also, should the money be paid out to people like Oprah who are already very wealthy (I have no idea if her ancestors were slaves)? I think if it were done, it should be need based.
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)I don't know why people keep bringing up the "money for descendants of slaves" thing when the author of the article posted specifically says he doesn't propose that.
I really wish people would read things before commenting on them.
840high
(17,196 posts)
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)ESPECIALLY inner-city public schools and other programs to help black children succeed.
If black kids in the inner city had the same educational opportunities as white kids in the suburbs, a lot of problems would vanish, but right now you've got kids who can barely read being given diplomas, and iffenwhen they get to college, they're already way behind.
Cutting a check to someone who can barely read and who has no job skills is like slapping a bandaid on a bullet hole.
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)"Cutting a check to someone who can barely read and who has no job skills" isn't what the author of that article is proposing.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)but increasing opportunity for the 30% or so of black kids who don't graduate high school and the 60% or so who don't graduate college would help all society.
Prism
(5,815 posts)I know it'll never happen in my lifetime, but I think dedicating an entire department of government to racial inequality, fully funding it with billions of dollars, with a mission of repairing and remedying racial inequities in education, employment, infrastructure, banking, and criminal justice, is what the country needs to both reconcile its past and move forward as a whole, healed unit.
I know we have various lesser departments and programs that deal with these topics, but an overarching sustained effort, like a mini New Deal, is what is required to really dig deep and start making significant progress that is a century and a half overdue.
Cash reparations are a band-aid. The institutions of this country need major surgery.
But I'm not super optimistic of this prospect. While people like to say, "White people are unlikely to go for this any time soon!" - and that is true - I see no reason why any other racial groups will similarly come on board in any quicker a fashion. Demographically, America isn't becoming more African American over time. Whites as a percentage of population are decreasing due to immigration from Latino and Asian countries (Latino and Asian populations are expected to triple in the next 30 years).
And I feel like those immigrants and their successive generations will feel even less responsibility for America's tainted past than whites currently do. Hell, just look how many white people react. "My Irish ancestors came over in 19xx! Why should I feel guilty about slavery?!"
And that's from people whose families lived through and benefitted from the unequal 20th Century systems. Will 21 century immigrants and their children feel much different about it?
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)businesses, several hundred became elected officials including in our Federal Gov.
Then came many decades of absolute oppression/extermination attempts- burning homes, stealing deeded land, driving black people out of some southern counties and neighborhoods. lynching, put in prison to be worked to death by Corps in coal mines.
There has to be state records of prisoners, records of deeds for owned land and homes. Records of how many prisoners were leased to Corps and their names. Their descendants should be made whole again.
But I doubt the USA Gov. State & Federal will ever do that for any of Americas oppressed.
