for or against slavery reparations and why?

[LDS Jock]

Poll question: for or against slavery reparations and why?

This issue is addressed in the green party platform, but to my knowledge is not touched by Democrats. Certainly it is a divisive issue, but one which crops up from time to time in different places. Should the descendents of slaves in this country be offered reparations? If so, who gets the money and where does it come from? Who has to pay? Of course there are no former slaves still alive, but discrimination still exists and effects the lives of millions today. Should they be awarded reparations? What about immigrants from Africa since slavery ended. They suffer from the discrimination too, but are not descendants of slaves. Do they get reparations? Do only people whose ancestors owned slaves or profited in some way from slavery to pay for this? Or is it that we all should, since collectively our country profited from it? And of course too, it the reason given it to help with ending discrimination, then what of the discrimination suffered by other groups?

I've been thinking about this for a week since seeing it on the green party platform. I have mixed feelings about it and not sure where I stand. If there were some way this would end discrimination I would be all for it. I don't think that will happen though, and I'm afraid it could divide us and not solve much of anything but instead be just a band-aid.

What are your thoughts DUers?

[Grey Ranks]

1. Reparations Make No Sense.

I would also agree that black people still suffer from the effects of slavery. I would also agree that the United States benefited from slavery, in the short term. I am against reparations for many reasons.

First of all it makes no sense, why should the United States Government and the its people by held personally accountable? This is a federation of states, not an empire. We eventually fought a war against the states that had slavery, and the current power in the United States resisted slavery, to the extent that we took military action against Slavers before the civil war. The United States Government of today bears little responsibility for the actions of Slavery. And what little we did was paid back in the Civil War. The people who held black people in slavery no longer exist.

Secondly how would we determine the reparations? Do black today not benefit from living in the United States. They are American Citizens, not Black Citizens, there is no such thing.

Thirdly, as Chris Rock so eloquently pointed out, “When was the last time you say a Native American family at Dennys? You didn’t they are all dead.” Blacks are hardly the most abused people in the United States, we don’t hear as much talk about Native American Reparations because we killed them all. Slavery vs. Genocide? One of those is worse than the other.

[tx_dem41]

9. As for your first point....

The Constitution, as originally written and ratified by ALL states, allowed slavery (and considered slaves as 3/5's a person). So, ALL of the US was complicit in it.

As for black people being citizens and benefitting...you have heard about Jim Crow laws haven't you? Not really benefitting much during that period in my opinion. And again, ALL of the U.S. (as confirmed in Plessy v. Ferguson, 1892) was complicit in that.

As for the Chris Rock statement, for one, he isn't a political or moral authority last time I checked (and I like the guy). Two, you picked the wrong analogy with the horrible history of discrimination that Denny's has with blacks. Three, if one is worse than the other, does that nullify the experience of the lesser? I think not.

[Grey Ranks]

11. Okay, but

I am aware that the states were originally "complacent" as you said. I do not think that is a fair description though, as I am sure you are aware they were forced to drop the issue. If they didn’t, then no US. The northern power base also did everything they could to stop slavery. To include forcing succession on the South. Be it purposeful or not their tariffs to punish the south caused the Civil war. I don’t know what more you expect the United States to have down.

I think this is really the key point of contention, to what degree is the US responsible for slavery? As I said, I feel not very much anymore. The US is a democracy, and the people that comprise it are no longer guilty of the crime of complacency. I do agree that we benefit from slavery though, to an extent. Nonetheless, I think on both sides we have paid a terrible price. I believe the US has suffered form slavery more than it is has benefited. As I said, we are all Citizens now.

I am aware of Jim Crow, but in the year 2005 black people benefit from living in the US. I don’t see how you can argue with that. I don’t see how bringing up the past, slavery, is really productive for either side.

As for your third point you are seeing ghosts where there are none.

There are a lot more pressing issues to deal with that punishing the innocent for the crimes of others. I think we need to address the socioeconomic barriers that keep all people in the US down, nor just blacks. I think it is time that both sides forget about the past and focus on the future.

[tx_dem41]

14. I notice that you live in

Nebraska. There is a whole different world out there, believe me. We can't keep sweeping it under the rug. I am not seeing ghosts. But, thanks for trying to assume what my experiences are.

And, by the way, I said "complicit", not "complacent". They have entirely different meanings, so please don't put words in my mouth.

[Grey Ranks]

21. Sorry

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

I am not sure what you thought I meant by "Ghosts". I meant that you were interpreting my statements as an attempt to cheapen the crime of slavery. The dangers of the internet.

And I am not really sure how where I live has anything to do with it. Talk about assuming about experience. I just live here, I didn't grow up here. Your right, this place isn't the most compassionate about these issues. I assure though Nebraska has nothing to do with my point of view.

[tx_dem41]

25. I'm sorry too....

for snapping at you. I appreciate the response back.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tx_dem41]

29. They aren't my ancestors. Strange, that you just assume that I am black.

Yes, very strange indeed.....

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tx_dem41]

36. Some call it "white guilt".....

I just call it "morality".

[ultraist]

66. Morality it is!

The Civil Rights Act was not passed until 1964. It's dangerous NOT to look back, as the Holocaust survivors have told us.

One must never forget.

[Grey Ranks]

121. There is a Difference

between remembering the past and learning from it and living in the past and blaming everything on events no longer of your control.

[tx_dem41]

218. Who's living in the past?

I'm talking about problems (and possible solutions) that exist today.

[Grey Ranks]

261. Work

If people don't earn what they get they won't respect what they get, or themselves. How will money taken and distributed arbitrarily help anyone?

[tx_dem41]

295. I think the slaves didn't get what they earned and corporations

didn't earn what they got (and are still to this day benefitting from). That's the problem.

[tx_dem41]

27. More fair than the present situation. I'm glad we agree.

You also forgot to mention that WHITE Americans wrote a Constitution making slavery legal, and wrote a Constitution that made slaves 3/5's of a person. You also forgot to mention that WHITE Americans passed Congressional acts in the antebellum era that furthered the spread of slavery. You also forgot to mention that WHITE Americans ruled that segregation (as well as poll taxes, etc.) was Constitutionally legal, thus extending the "non-citizenship" status of blacks another 70 years.

Oh, and then there is this article.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-reparations.htm


Its amazing how much we forget.

[reallygone]

302. Horrible

Slavery is a horrible practice and should never be the fate of any person. Indentured servitude was no better. Unfortunately, both were practiced on every continent on earth prior to the 1900's and it was "legal" (defined as not being against the law in countries where it occurred). Thank goodness we (humanity) have wiped out slavery in almost every country. Today it is practiced only in Africa and some Southeast Asian countries.

[yellowjacket]

57. Um, 3/5 compromise was a GOOD thing.

Think about it. If slaves counted for a whole person in those days, that means more repsentation for slave states in the House. Keeping them at 3/5 means keeping slave states from being over represented.

[tx_dem41]

60. Of course, the legalization of slavery that I also mentioned...

was a bad thing. We can agree on that, I hope.

[ScreamingMeemie]

Tough question. I'm not sure where I stand either.

It always comes down to where are we willing to draw the line? While no one suffered as much as the slaves, we have as a country discriminated and taken from many. Removing the Japanese during WWII, destroying their livelihoods and businesses. Forcing the Indians from their land and so on.

I agree with you that reparations would seem like a misguided, and often misused band aid. I think that we need to become more strongly united in creating laws against discrimination in any of its many forms...thus ending, perhaps, the need for reparation talk. i.e. Equaling the playing field may end the feeling of being kept down.

Why do I feel as if I just posted in a circle?

[Retired AF Dem]

2. I voted against

My family arrived into the United States in 1892. My family has no history of owning slaves.

[ScreamingMeemie]

3. Nor did mine. But we partake of a society built upon their backs.

Just playing devil's advocate here. I am not a proponent of reparations, per se. :hi:

[Silverhair]

236. The country the slaves built was destroyed in the 1860's.

Sherman burned Atlanta, and other cities. Plantations homes were destroyed.

The slaves did NOT build any of the north or the western states. So you statement that the country was built on their backs is false.

Do you really believe that all the whites in the country didn't work and the blacks did all the work in the whole country?

[ScreamingMeemie]

245. Disagree. Much of what they did found its way to Northern states.

I'm not for reparations, but I'm also not for denying all that they did. Did whites work? Yes. Were they owned? Only the indentured servants. :hi:

[LDS Jock]

6. I do

I found one ancestor who owned slaves when I was doing genealogy research. I don't feel like I'm living any better because of it. Nor do I feel guilt over it. I didn't personally do it. I am ashamed for him and for our country but think there might be better ways to make up for the wrongs than reparations. This is why I support affirmative action. Having said that, I also realize affirmative action has not solved anything. I don't know that anything, including reparartions, could.

[ultraist]

67. Affirmative Action has helped quite a lot, it is a form of retribution

Granted, retribution and reperation have slightly different meanings, but the spirit behind them is the same:to correct the wrong.

AA hasn't "solved anything" but it has been a catalyst for positive change. That's why the Democratic party supports it.

[twenty2strings]

4. Irish,native Americans, chinese,Italians,mexicans ect.and ect..

The list of victims goes on and on. What say we just take all the country back and call it even.

[alwynsw]

41. 100% Irish descent here

I guess I'll go for reparations because some of my ancestors were sent here under a transportation sentence, then denied jobs and education.

There's not a single group in the world that has not been enslaved and oppressed, at least in part, in the history of the world. Let's all pay ourselves and move on.

[Name removed]

293. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

5. How could it be done fairly and humanely?

[LDS Jock]

7. I don't think it can be

No one questions those people were wronged and many of their descendants still suffer from discrimination resulting from that era, but it is only one group, and I can't imagine any fair way for reparations.

[Warpy]

8. Slaves represented wealth, so they were cared for to a point

Working people represented wealth escaping into paychecks, so they were used up, worn out, and dumped with no pension (something we're on our way back to). There was no compensation for being injured or killed on the job. Their labor is represented by the gaudy opulence in Newport, RI.

There is probably no way a free but abused worker would ever have traded places with a slave, though. At least the worker knew he couldn't be sold away from his family, or they from him, although his injury from a careless employer could cause them to starve.

However, to ignore the labor history of this country by focusing only on the slave labor part is to ignore a lot of reality of where great wealth comes from, and the human cost of amassing it.

When you start talking about reparations, these are the people you need to focus on, the rich who parasite themselves on the labor of many, and increase human misery as much as they can to amass more wealth.

[ultraist]

69. Slaves were not well cared for, they were beaten, raped, and killed

They were also seperated from their families and forced to work for free as prisoners.

[HamdenRice]

191. This is so ignorant it's pathetic

And note, I did not insult you, but your assertion. It is just plain historically wrong, but gets repeated ad nauseum. Therefore, the assertion itself is mind-numbingly ignorant.

Once and for all, no, slave masters did not keep their slaves alive because they were an investment. You can repeat this idiocy over and over again, which was initially proposed by racist historians early in the century and picked up by conservative/racist economists like Fogel & Engerman.

But all the empirical historical studies show that slaves lived short, brutish, nasty lives -- much shorter than free workers. They may have been an investment, but one that could be "depreciated" in a few years, so there was no need to keep them alive. In all of the new world -- including Brazil, coastal areas of Latin America, Cuba and other Caribean islands, and the US South, there wer almost NO DEMOGRAPHICALLY SELF SUSTAINING SLAVE POPULATIONS. The only exceptions were a few counties of the upper south states -- and many of the slaves "bred" there were sold "down the river" to certain death in the lower south. This is so obvious and so accepted by professional historians, that one has to question why the opposite is ever repeated by anyone other than neo-confederate, modern pro-slavery racists. The fact that you repeat this libel leads to the conclusion that this is exactly what you are.

[alwynsw]

10. Against - for many reasons.

Not the least of which is that it's absurd for today's African Americans to pay themselves. How do they do that, you ask? Simple.

Payment either comes directly from tax dollars or indirectly from tax dollars in the form of tax credits. Either way, there's likely to be a reduction in entitlements to pay the debt so all poor suffer monetarily from reparations. African Americans pay taxes. Why should they pay in part for actions no one alive today had any part in commiting? I could go on, but you get my drift.

What about those whose families emigrated to the U.S after 1865? What about those whose fmailies never owned slaves or supported the system? Most Northerners (despite the fact that the first 11 slaves were imported to and owned in what is now NYC) and the vast majority of Southerners fit this category. Also, what about the free blacks who owned slaves? (Look it up, there were quite a few, especially in Louisiana.)

There's far more, but I'm not going to write a book.

The peculiar institution was wrong on too many levels to enumerate. The same can be said of reparations. Lastly, for potential flamers: as a matter of degree, the institution was far worse.

[tx_dem41]

12. This "peculiar institution" lasted well past 1863. Many would say it.

still lasts today. At the very least, it lasted well into the 1960s.

As for the fact that no one alive today having supported the system. There are hundreds of companies, Sears Roebuck being one, that were built on the backs of slaves. Current shareholders are benefitting to this day.

[alwynsw]

18. Wrong answer. Try again.

<snip>Sears, Roebuck and Co. has over a century full of history and incredible achievements. In 1886, a Chicago jewelry company shipped an order of gold filled watches to a Minneapolis jewelry store. When the jewelry store refused delivery a station agent by the name of Richard Sears decided to purchase the shipment and try to sell them to other station agents. This proved to be successful for Richard Sears, and in 1886, Richard Sears began a company known as R.W. Sears Watch Company in Minneapolis. A year later in 1887, Sears moved his new found business to Chicago, and placed an advertisement in the newspaper for a watchmaker. The ad received a response from an Indian man by the name of Alvah C. Roebuck. Sears hired Roebuck and in 1893 the corporate name of the firm became Sears, Roebuck and Co.

http://academic.emporia.edu/smithwil/00spmg456/eja/pieschl.html

Yes, there were companies that made money as a result of slavery in America. Please try to pick on the right ones. Bill them for reparations now and everyone, including potential recipients of said reparations, will pay them back every penny, plus interest, in higher prices. If youou want to avoid those companies, go ahead. It won't make on bit of difference. The economic web is so interwoven that even a mom and pop grocery in Maine has som economic impact in Hawaii. If you don't believe that, take an economics class.

[tx_dem41]

20. You got me on Sears.

Okay, when we find the companies (as you suggest), we will bill all past and current shareholders (including mutual fund holders), all past and current employees (including their pension plans, if they exist), and all customers (since they benefitted in lower prices). That should cover everyone.

As you suggest, the economy is interwoven. Thus, society as a whole even today benefits from the uncompensated labor from a hundred and fifty years ago. Thanks for helping prove my point.

[alwynsw]

28. And as society as a whole currently benefits

society as a whole will pay for repparations. That's only one of my rubs with the idea, but it's a good one.

[tx_dem41]

31. Isn't that what our tax system (should) be based on? n/t

[alwynsw]

37. Why, oh why should those same people who would receive

reparations under any such program be required to pay as well? It's a circular, untenable mess any way you slice it.

[tx_dem41]

39. Well, for one thing, I haven't advocated for a payment system of

reparations.

But, since we (still) have a progressive system of taxation, I don't see where the problem would be theoretically. I do agree that it would be complicated.

[alwynsw]

43. I'll colse this line for my part with this idea

Undertake a careful study of the definite economic impact and probable social impact of such a scheme and you may find that it's an enormously counterproductive idea.

[tx_dem41]

44. I agree that it very well could be.

That's why I haven't advocated for it.

[chicagiana]

199. Legitamite reparations ...

Well, there are living victims of "virtual slavery". The prison gang institutions of this century ensnared black people into servitude for crimes as petty as sleeping in a park.

Such a lawsuit would have red states as targets and would have REAL LIVE defendents that could show damages.

[Just Me]

13. Isn't the best reparation economic and social justice in addition to,...

,...a purer form of democracy?

:shrug:

As a female who has suffered first hand discrimination myself, I want a reparation that's inclusive and helps our people in a broad way.

[jdots]

15. Look to America's culture then decide

It's easy to be against giving something back to some people who gave so much to this country if you live in a bubble.Try waking up as an African American someday in this country.We have done nothing but rip them off for 400 years while they have given us more than we realize. I say yes to reperations in the form
freedom and respect and afirmative action plus repaying labor costs in the form of cash.The neocons are into slavery,they should cut the checks for the big payback to everyone they rip off.
People like chimp get to go to Yale and Harvard for alot of reasons like privatized prisons and thier part in thinking they are a master race,well there is no master race.

[chicagiana]

200. If you haven't noticed ...

White people have been ripped off nearly as much for almost the same time period.

The reparation for all forms of both slavery AND wage slavery is social welfare, social security and public education. Hopefully in the future, it will contain health care as well.

For my part, I'd rather spend my time pushing for a benefit that benefits EVERYONE than a benefit that only helps a minority. It would be a HELL of a lot easier to pass.

[ultraist]

264. "What people have been ripped off nearly as much" WTF? There is no racism?

:nuke:

[Stop_the_War]

16. For, in the form of government assistance and affirmative action

[Swamp Rat]

17. Reparations need to be made to ALL the underclass and oppressed. n/t

[mitchum]

19. Sure, as long as they are paid out of state funds from the ones that...

belonged to the CSA

[Charon]

248. State Funds

Should be paid out of funds from any state that Legally permitted slavery to exist within their boundaries. Not just the of Confederacy. That would also include the District of Columbia.

[Vinca]

22. I voted against. I've never owned a slave. No one in my family has.

As far as I know, the thought never crossed our minds. If reparations are made to the families of former slaves, the next thing will be reparations to women who were historically repressed, then fat people who are still victims of discrimination, and on, and on, and on, and on. It was a shameful period in our history, but at some point we have to go forward and call the past the past. Money doesn't solve everything.

[donco6]

45. That's my argument, too.

None of my ancestors were here before 1876. Before that, WE were the serfs in Russia.

[tx_dem41]

46. Please read the following....

For one thing, racial oppression was not ended in 1863. I thought everyone knew about the Jim Crow era, instilled by the United States Supreme Court in 1892.

As for non-owners not benefitting:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-reparations.htm

[donco6]

47. Uh.

My people all lived in Kansas. Ever been? I never saw a black person until I moved to Denver many years later. Hard to oppress people you can't see.

[tx_dem41]

49. Sigh...thanks for reading the article. n/t

[donco6]

64. You're welcome

<snarkiness off>

[fortyfeetunder]

90. What part of Kansas?

My spouse's family of several generations lived in Kansas since the 1880's, and many still live there.

[donco6]

97. Ellis

But my branch moved to Wamego later on.

[tx_dem41]

93. Actually, its quite easy to oppress people you can't see.

Its called voting Republican.

[ultraist]

68. 1964 Civil Rights Act did not even end racism

[Charon]

247. Racial Oppression

That is not the issue. The question was reparations for chattle slaver. That institution ended with the XIII Amendment to the Constitution.

[tx_dem41]

296. And was transformed into Jim Crow laws for the next 100 years. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Yes. I urge anyone who voted no to read the history of slavery.

And, it's aftermath to the present day. It's effects are still felt in the pervasive racism that exists in this country. Kinda like saying "I'm sorry I ran over your kid but, hey, quit complaining, you can have another one."

White America stole their labor, their dignity, their lives, their families, their opportunities, and then kept doing so right up to the present.

It's not like we're giving them a present. We owe them.

BTW. My mother immigrated to this country in 1919, so spare me the "but, we didn't do it" cop-out.

[Retired AF Dem]

33. The money for the reparations will eventually come out of our

pockets in either taxes or higher costs of goods and services. My family never owning slaves it a good copout to me. We have made great strides in race relations but there is much more to do. In my opinion (and you know what they say about opinions) reparations would end up sending race relations back to the very beginning.

[tx_dem41]

35. You might possibly be right.

As for never owning slaves being a copout, please read the following:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-reparations.htm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

114. Reparations didn't seem to harm the Japanese-Americans.

Or, their relations with White America.

[CTLawGuy]

168. in that case,

there were discrete persons harmed (themselves) in discrete ways, and there were tangible defendants whose conduct could be proven and shown to be harmful.

Slavery is a different kettle of fish.

[ultraist]

70. Good advice! A well informed opinion is better than an ill informed one

[blurp]

141. You didn't read enough. What about black slave owners?

White America stole their labor, their dignity, their lives, their families, their opportunities, and then kept doing so right up to the present.

Apparently a small part of Black America did the same.

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

"In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4)."

So, who owes whom what in this case?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

148. Actually, I did read that.

And, a small part of the Native American population served in the army while they were committing genocide against native Americans.

Of course, some blacks owned slaves. If you read a bit further, some of them bought slaves from whites to save them from brutal masters. Some bought family members from their owners.

Does that make slavery a black institution? I think not.

Black slavery was instituted by whites for monetary gain. Which it achieved. To find a few anecdotes about blacks owning blacks is naive, at best. Kinda like the anecdotal evidence of kindly massa's.

The fact remains that people were robbed of their freedom. Try reading some of the books of Ira Berliner, or "Slave Narratives" that were gathered during the '30s.

Not to mention the aftermath after reconstruction was halted when de-facto slavery was reintroduced through violence and legislation. The Civil Rights movement didn't occur because the south had become enlightened and was seeking justice and equality.

It's an unpaid bill, long overdue.

[ultraist]

156. Oh, please, another exception to the rule argument? Six black slave owners

Compared to how many slaves held prisoner by WHITES?

Shall we end Affirmative Action because Oprah is successful too?

[sierrajim]

246. Well your posting your own exception

Shall we end Affirmative Action because Oprah is successful too?

I find affirmative action in this time and place to be an extremly racist practice and before you start giving me any shit about "your just a pissed off whiteman" dont even bother I'm Hispanic on my fathers side and white on my mothers. We should all look around us colorblind.

[ultraist]

259. Affirmative Action is extremely racist? It's part of DEM party platform

Affirmative Action applies to all minorities including women.

We DO NOT HAVE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. Check the facts. We are not a colorblind society.

I support Equal Opportunity FOR ALL which happens to be a core value of the Dem party.

[sierrajim]

281. Well we need to get rid of it

My interpretation of your sentence says it all right there.

I support Equal Opportunity FOR ALL which happens to be a core value of the Dem party.

For all I would hope means ALL,EVERYONE on our small green planet the continued use of affirmative action makes an advantage for one race over another so yes I WILL SAY IT IS A RACIST POLICY.

[CTLawGuy]

169. hey

stop breaking down their reductionist simplistic worldview.

[CTLawGuy]

167. hopefully if someone runs over your kid

you dont wait 200 years for your descendents to sue their descendents.


I voted no. I believe any reparations should be dealt out according to legal convention. Sue someone in court, if you can get a jury to give you a reparation, then fine. But I highly doubt that will be possible or practical.

[Name removed]

201. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fujiyama]

290. Copout or not

I'm not interested in taking responsibility for something my ancestors and myself had nothing to do with. I understand how terrible the institution was...and the effects it has had through today....

When slaves were whipped by the whites, my ancestors were colonized and had their country looted by the British. I want to demand that the British government give me reperations.

I lead my life with no prejudice against anyone. My friends are of all races and ethnicities. I will never hold any prejudice against anyone, but I know that won't be the case with some other people. Reperations would be a step back in race relations, building animosity and bitterness.

A large percent of the country was either foreign born or is second or third generation, which means their relatives emmigrated here around the same time as your own.

What we need to do is provide those in poverty a good education, health care, and a way to get out of poverty - meaning a good job.

[Stop_the_War]

30. It's sad that so many people answered no.......

But maybe this poll is being freeped?

[tx_dem41]

32. Ya' never know these days.

Sadly enough.

[CTLawGuy]

221. I don't find it sad at all

if you feel guilty, then by all means give away your life savings to african americans, if you happen to be white.

[ICantBelieve]

38. Undecided

I'm the undecided. That's the way I voted.

Discrimination is wrong. We all know that. And we have to make it go away. We all know that too.

I think, though, that a better way to spend the money would be to fund education and affirmative action. I'd like to see affirmative action redesigned. I'd like to see it mean "hire based on potential." I'd like to see companies reimbursed for paying to bring people up to speed, people who have been disadvantaged by the system and discrimination and hence haven't had good educations and previous experience. Instead of letting someone into a school or hiring a person based on their qualifications TODAY, base the decision on their FUTURE qualifications given a reasonable catch-up period.

[Lex]

40. Remember, once reparations are made, affirmative action programs will END.

.
That is what will happen.

Reparations are a one-time way saying "Here, this is for what happened, now please don't ask for affirmative action, college-entry programs, or anything else."

I disagree with reparations for that very reason.

Better that we try to preserve on-going affirmative action and similar programs that occur over a long period of time, imho.

[ultraist]

72. Who says? It doesn't have to end AA

You are assuming that the reperation is total contrition for all past, present and FUTURE wrong doing. Not so.

AA is to create and maintain a level playing field.

[Lex]

81. Oh yes.

I attended a conference for attorneys where the topic of reparations to African Americans was discussed. This was held at a historically black law school, btw.

Many of the African American lawyers in the group felt that the first thing that would happen would be that the reparations would be a foot in the door for all those who wish to see Affirmative Action dismantled.

Those who want to dismantle Affirmative Action will say that reparations are for payment for all past, present and future wrong-doing, and that the playing field should now be considered leveled. Otherwise, they will say, why would people agree to pay reparations and then keep on 'paying' through Affirmative Action and other such programs.

In fact, they felt the only way people would ever agree to pay reparations in the first place is if Affirmative Action, etc. were all dismantled.

[ultraist]

87. The Repukes would push for that, but they might not win

I agree that the Repukes would use it as an excuse to claim the case is closed.

But if the amount of money was fairly small and it was clearly written into the law that this was in no way full compensation for all past, present and future acts of discrimination, I think that would be a safeguard against it being used to dismantle AA. It would be a partial payment of retribution for PAST wrongs.

To say it would for certain end AA, would be like saying, if Ford put out a defective auto and I was injured and sued that I could not sue again if I was injured in another defective model of their's in the future. That's not how it works.

[Lex]

89. Realistically, in this country right now, people would agree

for reparations only if it was agreed that it was compensation for past and present wrongs and that from here on out, everyone was considered to be playing on a level field.

Hell, right now, many people in this country apparently want gay people to go sit at the back of the bus, so they sure aren't going to be voting for reparations to happen with Affirmative Action still in play.

[ultraist]

92. You may well be correct

If it came down to a choice, I'd definitely go with AA.

[chicagiana]

203. Who would you pay ???

If you were mixed race, would you get a check??? Or would it be pro-rated based on your african heritage???

Would it be means tested. Would Condaleeza Rice get the same check as your average black American????

What about the descendants of "freeman". Would they also be entitled to slavery reparations????

[ultraist]

254. You obviously are not reading the posts

Just as with the Native Americans, there would have to be a percentage, like 3/4 of black descent.

We also mentioned it would be means tested (that means people over a certain income would not qualify).

Why are you so hysterically opposed to this? You have not provided any logical reasons for opposing this but keep making ridiculous assumptions.

[pnutchuck]

307. It's 1/16th for Native Americans n/t

[noiretextatique]

162. many so-called democrats also oppose affirmative action

just ask some of them here.

[eek MD]

42. How much money were are the lives of your ancestors worth?

While i agree it was one of many horrible parts of the past of this nation, i don't see what reparations would accomplish.

a) how much would you pay? - Is there any way to determine how much one's ancestors were worth?......It would be more insulting to offer someone a "pittance" and say "ok, water under the bridge", than it would be to offer a sincere apology and back it up with other ways of helping minority communities.
b) who would you pay it to? - any african american? What about those whose ancestors came over after slavery ended...even though many still suffer the same "second-class" citizenship because of skin color. Why stop at african americans?....Native Americans lost their homeland because of america. Women had very few rights for generations in america. ...etc
c) how much would this cost? - What would be the cost in dollars for this? I know it sounds insensitive to think of the cost involved, but our country is pretty far in the "red" as it is now. How much would this increase the defecit. An increased debt and it's interest is something that the decendants of the current citizens who would be receiving reparations would be paying off down the road....

[Martin Eden]

48. Please define "Reparations"

Does it mean giving an arbitrary sum of money to every American of African descent?

There has been some racial intermarriage in the last 140 years, and not every American citizen with African ancestors is descended from slaves. Should we first determine the lineage of each potential recipient of reparations?

Do Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, and other multi-millionaires get reparations?

From which fund are reparations to be drawn? Do we penalize businesses that profited from slavery and are still extant, or do we use federal funds and simply increase the deficit?

I voted against reparations, because I assumed it is defined as cash payments to African Americans. I don't think that would be practical, affordable, or could be fairly implemented.

I am 100% in favor of using our nation's resources to improve opportunity for all Anericans, regardless of race. This would mean spending as much or more on the education of inner city children as on wealthy suburnanites (more would be required to repair crumbling facilities and to purchase new computers, etc.).

I'm in favor of acknowledging that the problems of the black underclass in America can be blamed to a large extent on slavery and on the discrimination that persisted for more than 100 years after the Civil War -- and for making it a national priority to overcome the disadvantages that still persist. Affirmative action and economic investment in black communities are strategies (in addition to investment in education) that could be employed.

If the above two paragraphs are closer to the definition of reparations then I'm for it, but I can't support cash payments that would likely have very little long term positive effect on helping the next generation of African Americans build better lives and communities.

[SmokingJacket]

50. I think affirmative action is more effective.

I certainly don't like the idea of the ancestors of slaveholders being the ones to pay them -- some of my ancestors had slaves, but other ancestors were abolitionists, and I also have reason to believe some of my ancestors were black.

In any case, I certainly received no benefit from my slave-holding ancestors, since they went on to be dirt-poor farmers in later generations.

I really do think some reparation should be made, though -- by the country at large, not by individuals, since they're all gone. But continuing affirmative action makes more sense, since a policy can last longer than a single cash payment.

[William Bloode]

51. Nope.

I don't support reparations. If anyopne deserves reparations it would be Native Americans like myself. I do not support reparations for us either as it is not just to have the people of today foot the bill for the crimes of yesterday.

[tx_dem41]

52. Unless of course, the crimes of yesterday are still quite lucrative...

to people today.

[William Bloode]

53. Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

You wanna talk lucrative? How about the whole damn continent?

[tx_dem41]

54. I was talking about the following....

http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-reparations.htm

[William Bloode]

58. And you don't think....

There are companies and orginazations around that profited from the genocide of the Native American? Reparations are silly.

[tx_dem41]

59. I respect your stance. And, I haven't advocated for reparations.

I'm just trying to refute the notion that its effects are not present today.

[chicagiana]

204. Native Americans got their Reparations ...

... they are called CASINOS. Thousands of stupid white people travel there to donate to the tribe in return for their sins.

What the tribes do with the money will be the ultimate measure of Native Americans. But I would seriously hope to see a LOT of schools being built.

[pnutchuck]

308. Many of these CASINOS are financed by Las Vegas

Reno, and Atlantic City money men. Yes, it has made improvements, albeit minor, in their living conditions, it in no way replaces the years of genocide. That's like saying the Jews got their reparations with Israel. And since the Indian Gaming has become so successful, states are now trying to increase their gaming tax to 40%.

[louis c]

55. Maybe you can explain to me

how my Grandparents who came to this country from 1905 to 1917 from Italy are in any way responsible for slavery?

I believe in affirmative action in an effort to correct some social imbalances, but to take my tax dollars to pay ancestors of oppressed people that my ancestors had no part in is ludicrous.

Even more absurd are ancestors of the many Union soldiers who fought and died in the Civil War to end the tyranny of slavery. Their ancestors gave their lives so African-Americans could be free, now others want to charge them for it?

It comes a time when Native-Americans, African-Americans, and all Americans have to put the past in its rightful place.

We should condemn the folly of the past, a past that is four or five generations removed from us, and respect each other as Americans, regardless of how we got here, who came first, or what hardships our ancestors had to endure.

[tx_dem41]

56. Well...

unfortunately, the ancestors of those Union Army soldiers were the ones that wrote the Constitution that established the legalization of slavery and the denigration of African-Americans. And, of course, corporations were built on that illegitimate bedrock. We still "benefit" from that today.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-reparations.htm

[txaslftist]

197. Actually, it's the British we should be suing...

They established slavery before the colonies were independent. We should be seeking reparations from London.

[tx_dem41]

220. No, we fought a revolution to separate ourselves from Britain...

...and everything after that is our OWN responsibility. Its to the shame of OUR forefathers that they did not truly grasp the idea of liberty that they otherwise wrote about so eloquently.

[txaslftist]

226. Ummmm...No.

I didn't fight a revolution, neither did you unless you are really, really old.

It's not my fault my ancestors revolted. I don't owe any money off what my forefathers did, either. My grandfather died owing money to the VA for his last years, and neither my father nor I have to pay them.

My uncle died owing child support. I don't owe anything on that, either.

[tx_dem41]

228. We all currently, as either shareholders, employers, or customers,.....

..."benefit" from the free labor that slavery provided.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-reparations.htm

[txaslftist]

235. and we all currently...

benefit from seizing this land from the native Americans, who benefitted from seizing it from earlier tribes, who benefited from seizing it from others.

We all collectively benefit from driving the entire species of Neanderthals from the earth.

If you want to look at the history of mankind for people who benefitted from injustice, the entire house of mankind is stained with the blood of innocents. We are all living the legacy of rapine and murder, not to put too fine a point on it.

But I have never owned a slave. I've never taken someone's property at gunpoint or taken someone as property. My great grandfather started out with NOTHING, the son of a broke miner and a half-breed indian woman who took everything he ever owned from the labor of his hands. Every advantage I was ever born with accrued from his labor and that of my direct ancestors.

My grandfather also started out "broke" and fought in WWII, killing many Japanese. Do I need to pay restitution to them? I don't owe anyone money for the misdeeds of my ancestors or other people's ancestors.

The Japanese internees were different, because many of them are still alive and are direct victims. Do my grandchildren need to make reparations to their grandchildren, many of whom will undoubtedly grow up with more advantages than my children will?

It makes not a whit of sense.

[tx_dem41]

238. You really didn't read the article, did you ?

I am assuming that since you didn't address one issue raised in the article.

As for the American Indians, I agree. The crime that is STILL going on to the American Indian also raises the possibility of reparations.

I guess I am more a believer in personal responsibility than many on this board. This country is MY country, and I am responsible in some way for what it does to its citizens today (heck, I thought that was what this forum was all about...doing something). The fact that African-Americans could not officially participate in citizenship until as little as 40 years ago is an embarrassment to me personally (for some odd reason, several on this thread think that slavery was the end of the plight of African-Americans...it was just the end of a chapter). And, I want my country to own up to it in SOME way. Heck, an apology would be a nice start.

[txaslftist]

242. Apparently you didn't.

"The reparations movement can't win in court, Pell insists. "But companies have learned you don't judge a lawsuit by its merits. You judge it by the potential public relations damage. Corporate America is following this issue. They understand how nasty it could get if someone comes in and says you have blood on your hands."

It shouldn't come to that, says Willie Gary, a reparations team member. He says companies tied to slavery should step forward and make amends by putting money into African-American scholarships and education. "Based on what America stands for and has stood for, it's the right thing to do. There's an opportunity to make a wrong right," he says. "This should be a negotiated matter. We shouldn't be in litigation for 20 years."

If you had, you would have seen they 1) aren't talking about government reparations, but those of private companies. 2) They admittedly don't have a case in court but are relying on adverse publicity to the companies to "force" a payment. 3) discuss the fact that the amount of payments is completely uncertain, the participants are all dead, and mention that many of the companies mentioned have been prominent in advancing the cause of African Americans since.

Does the existence of many of these companies benefit all of us? Sure. It could be argued that the existence of VW and IGFarben benefits us, too. That won't undo the holocaust. Should Americans who benefit from the existence of German companies pay holocaust reparations?

What does this have to do with "individual responsibility", anyway? Individual responsibility is being responsible for MY OWN choices. You're saying that rich or poor, white or black, democrat or republican, immigrant or native, I am BORN owing money to someone because something bad happened to them over the past 400 years. WTF?

That's COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, not individual responsibility.

[gottaB]

61. since you asked

Should the descendents of slaves in this country be offered reparations?

Yes. They've already been offered reparations. They should finally be given reparations.

Who gets the money?

The descendent of slaves, specifically, the descendents of African slaves. The feasibility of making individual remunerations should be investigated. Some form of collective repayment might be appropriate.

Where does it come from?

The Treasury. There are cases of corporate culpability which could be handled separately, however, it should be possible for corporate entities to make resititutions by paying into a public reparations fund.

Should people be awarded reparations on the grounds that they are discriminated against?

The Fourteenth Amendment provides a constitutional protection against discrimination by the federal government. Remedies for violations of the 14th Amendment can and should be distinguished from the issue of reparations for slavery.

What about immigrants from Africa since slavery ended?

They are generally not entitled to reparations on principle. As a practical matter, if they should receive as a group some benefit from reparations, it ought not be the focus of undue consternation.

Analogy. If you owned a house on a street where all of your neighbors received funds to make substantial home improvements, the value of your home would increase. That would hardly be unjust.

If you were to recieve funds as well, even though you were not yourself the descendent of slaves, on the basis that your neighborhood had historically been set aside by realtors, bankers and civic officials as a place where the descendents of slaves would be allowed to live, that would not be entirely just. Yet it would hardly seem to be a grave injustice. It would constitute a minor shortcoming in the administration of a program of reparations.

Do only people whose ancestors owned slaves or profited in some way from slavery to pay for this?

The United States government has to pay for this because it wrote slavery into its constitution, and because it profited from the trade in slaves. I draw your attention to Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

And Article 4 section 2:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

And of course the infamous 3/5ths compromise from Article 1, section 2:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Altogether these clauses had the effect of making the United States a government that sanctioned, enforced, and profited from slavery.

What of the discrimination suffered by other groups?

In cases of criminal law, it is not an adequate defense to say that the victims of your crime share a similar fate with others. "Sure, your honor, I busted his kneecaps. But what about all the other welchers whose kneecaps get busted? What about all the kneecaps the police have busted? What about all the skiers who break their legs? What about all the football players with bum knees? Just think of all the arthritic grandmas in New Jersey alone? Am I responsible for all the damaged knees in this world? In the interests of justice, please, your honor, don't make me pay for this natural vulnerability of the human anatomy."



Finally, an observation on divisiveness. I have little doubt that a movement simply to amend the Constitution to remove its most odious provisions would not succeed in today's social environment, and would probably fail spectacularly. That is, without commenting on the issues of reparations, the simple proposition that American descendents of slaves transported from Africa ought not be disrespected in our Constitution would prove to be extremely divisive. The year is 2005. I believe history has shown that the divisiveness engendered by the transatlantic slave system has not healed of its own accord.

[LDS Jock]

62. thank you.. you make some great points

I wanted to hear some strong opinions on it, since I'm trying to figure out my own position. I've googled around, checking for sites about it, but many of them are so polarized for their agenda it is a turn off to read them. I'd just like points to ponder, and you gave me some. Thanks.

[chicagiana]

205. How would you determine this ????

And exactly how would you determine who is a slave anscestor and who is not???

The anscestors of slaves don't have serial numbers tatooed on their arms like holocaust survivors. If "oral history" sufficed ... EVERYONE would have an "oral history" of slavery.

[gottaB]

232. IANAL, but I believe there are such things as class action suits

We can look to similar cases in international law to see how the mechanics of repayment have been worked out. For instance, the Japanese made reparations for its explotation of "comfort women" in WWII in the form of an "Asian Women's Fund." This has been a source of continued controversy, but it is worth taking a look at because of the variety of ways the program was recieved and implemented in different countries. See Soh's Comfort Women Project.

The issue of reparations for the Holocaust is not so simple as making payments to those with serial numbers tattooed on their flesh. An informal translation of the German Law on the Creation of a Foundation "Remembrance, Responsibility and Future" shows that the purpose of the fund is much broader than simply making financial restitutions to particular survivors.

(1) The purpose of the Foundation is to make financial compensation available through partner organizations to former forced laborers and to those affected by other injustices from the National Socialist period. (2) A "Remembrance and Future" fund will be established within the Foundation. Its continuing task is to use the income produced by the financial assets provided to the Foundation to foster projects that serve the purposes of better understanding among peoples, the interests of survivors of the National Socialist regime, youth exchange, social justice, remembrance of the threat posed by totalitarian systems and despotism, and international cooperation in humanitarian endeavors. In commemoration and respect of those victims of National Socialist injustice who did not survive, it is also intended to further projects in the interest of their heirs.

Identifying individual claimants was a monumental undertaking, but it was considered by the Claims Conference to be essential to the task of righting the injustices of the Nazi regime:

To help survivors document their claims to meet the requirements of the German Foundation, the Claims Conference undertook pro-active research in 150 Holocaust-related archives scattered in 30 countries around the world. Claims Conference researchers scoured paper and microfilmed lists—often handwritten and not alphabetized—in order to match the names of claimants to any documentation that would meet the requirements established by the German Foundation.

Sources of information included concentration camp lists, ghetto registers, transport lists, labor battalion rosters, lists of slave laborers in factories and plants, lists of inmates on work gangs, lists of prisoners released or liberated from concentration camps by Allied forces or humanitarian groups, lists of recipients of packages sent by friends and relatives through the Red Cross, and testimonials of survivors produced in the immediate aftermath of the Nazi occupation, among others.

This research effort led to payments for more than 30,000 survivors who otherwise lacked any documentation of their persecution. In addition, the comprehensive Claims Conference research led to a re-evaluation of certain aspects of the Shoah. In particular the Claims Conference successfully pressed the German Foundation to pay claimants able to prove persecution in certain camps in Bulgaria, Romania, North Africa, and Vichy France. Without the Claims Conference's research and the demand for a re-examination of the status of these claimants, they would have been excluded from consideration for forced or slave labor payments.

Finally, where no documentation could be found, applicants were invited to describe their persecution experiences and these statements could constitute part of the proof that the claimant was eligible for a payment.

$401 million to be paid to Nazi-era slave laborers

In sum, I am not impressed by arguments that just restitution for slavery would be unworkable. No such fund is without its flaws, but in the interests of justice, decent attempts can be made. Opposition to reparations seems to be a matter of political will more than a genuine concern about the fair and equitable administration of a reparations fund.

[chicagiana]

258. So you will scour slave records ...

And so you expect to find all this paper documentation for slaves origin 140 years ago as well as family bibles documenting 6-7 generations.

[ultraist]

262. More hysterical falsehoods, it would be 3 or 4 generations

Generally, a generation is considered 30-35 years.

Native Americans have been able to trace their ancestory.

Why do you assume that early slaves were Christian? Did the African tribes from which the slaves were kidnapped practice Christianity and use Bibles? LMAO!!!

FYI: Slaves were NOT ALLOWED to own books.

Gee, you are so well informed perhaps this is why you insist on resorting to hysterical falsehoods to support your argument.

[chicagiana]

299. Family bibles ...

Family bibles are the traditional way to trace geneology. I would assume that early slaves wouldn't have bibles. But subsequent generations would try to transcribe their "oral history" while it was still fresh.

30-35 years is the tail end of fertility and child bearing. So that the upper limit of a generational cycle. To find the total number of generations, you need to look at when females have children. And it's practical from the standpoint that multiple child families will probably have their last children in these ages.

So reference the chart. If the first kids are coming in the 16-17 (more realistic given the time periods) range, you'll find a maximum 8 generations. If you go as late as 23 years (WAY OLD, even for today among "oppressed" communities), you get 6 generations.

[gottaB]

276. What I would do is not get too hung up on particulars

You got me. My support for reparations is based purely on moral and legal principles. When it comes to particulars, I must fall back on the position that it deserves to be studied, which I had thought was the Green position, and is a view held by many progressive Democrats. In my view the greatest obstacle to a reparations fund being established by Congress is political. A strictly legal case need not be concerned with the politics of it, although many obstacles remain, as you note. An act of Congress would surely be helpful in that regard. I don't expect one anytime soon, but I would welcome it.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

63. As far as the principle of reparations goes, I'm not entirely opposed,

but the problem is that there is no feasible way to achieve it under the current situation. Who gets the money? All the direct victims of slavery are dead. Who pays? All those responsible for slavery are dead. Do we do it on race-based system? What about people who came here after slavery? If our (this is me speaking as a black man) ancestors suffered under slavery, why then should the descendants the money.

A prevailing argument amongst those who support reparations is that while those of the newer generation did not directly cause slavery, they benefited from the wealth. This argument is rather ridiculous, because if they benefited from the wealth, then everybody benefited. It's not as if all American wealth is the fruit of slavery. To suggest otherwise is to paint America with a unfairly broad brush. There seems to no feasible solution, sort of sugar-coated socialism.

Many have argued that the plan that they're looking for is not a direct payout, but government funds used to create institutions of awareness. That sounds good, but most of the talk I've heard is about the government dispensing checks.

[Sterling]

65. Affirmative action yes. Reparations no.

my $.02

[mark414]

71. sadly i must say i am not surprised by the results

what with all the racism that we find right here on DU

i voted for

[ultraist]

75. yep, seen it too, it's a sad state of affairs.

It's a lack of edu on the issue for the most part, IMO.

I think in some instances, people feel threatened by acknowledging the reality of this issue. Not sure why. I am a white female, upper middle class income and I have no problem acknowledging that I have advantages due to my race and class background (my family of origin and my current family--husband and kids).

It doesn't mean I didn't work hard to get to where I am to acknowledge the advantages, but I suppose it may for some. Additionally, some may feel very uncomfortable with not being able to take full credit for where they are. It's very difficult to get people to move outside of their comfort zones.

[Spacejet]

84. Perhaps YOU lack the education

Ever read the US constitution? Ever wonder WHY the constitution specifically states no one may be punished for the actions of a family member, or ancestor?

Ever bother to read the history of such practices? No, didn't think so.

[ultraist]

85. Are you really answering for me? LMAO!

:nuke:

[mark414]

99. forget history, you don't seem to even know what's happening right now

the effects of slavery are STILL felt today my friend...and to say otherwise is just plain ignorance

[jeffrey_X]

105. Can you acknowldge the benefits and privledge of your white skin?

Go back and ask your self this question. Would your life be any different if your family had black skin instead of white skin?

Would your father or grandfather have held the same jobs and priviledges they did if they would have had black skin during the first 2/3 of the the 20th century?

It is a shame most wont admit their white priviledge.

[ultraist]

110. I HIGHLY doubt my grandfather would have been an attorney if was black

Considering black people were essentially not allowed to go to college (segregation laws and lack of finances) in his day,it's a safe assumption.

http://www.pbs.org/itvs/fromswastikatojimcrow/blackcolleges_2.html
Black Institutions and Desegregation
African Americans also continued to press for equality in public higher education their efforts encouraged by the Supreme Court decision in Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada in 1938, which forced Southern state governments to concede more resources for the improvement of African American higher education than at any time since the Reconstruction era.

During the early 1950s, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) turned its efforts from educational equality to school desegregation. Its work culminated successfully in the Sweatt v. Painter (1950) and Brown v. Board of Education (1954) desegregation decisions, although these decisions had little direct effect on Black colleges.

In 1992 the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Fordice that patterns of racial segregation still remained in Mississippi¹s public university system, nearly 40 years after Brown v. Board of Education

[jeffrey_X]

122. At least you can admit what most will not.

..

[CTLawGuy]

224. I believe my life would have been very different if I were black

however, that does not make the life I enjoy now a "privilege".

I have a right to expect decent and equal treatment, and decent opportunity.

If African Americans cannot partake in that life, then that is the problem, not my enjoyment of that life.

[tx_dem41]

229. So apparently, it is the fault of

African-Americans?

[CTLawGuy]

230. nowhere

did I say that African Americans are responsible for their own hardship.

I am talking about the constant push of our focus outside of the scope of the problem,

from, "black people aren't being treated fairly,"

to, "white people are privileged in society."

I believe we need to focus on the former, rather than the latter, because as I have been saying, the latter is not really a problem.

the former does NOT imply the latter, as the world is not a zero-sum game.

If a white person can drive around at night without being harassed by the cops, he is not privileged, he is enjoying what everyone has a right to enjoy, freedom of movement. The "benefit" is the exact same, whether blacks share in it or not.

I also used another example earlier. If under racism I, as a white person, get a job, it cannot be proven conclusively that, under equality, I would not have gotten that job, unless you look at indivdual circumstances, which you people seem to find completely irrelevant.

[tx_dem41]

231. I apologize for my post then.

Sorry about the knee-jerk response on my part. I agree with what you just said.

[CTLawGuy]

233. your apology is accepted

thank you for being reasonable

:toast:

[kwassa]

249. I couldn't disagree more

darboy:
"If a white person can drive around at night without being harassed by the cops, he is not privileged, he is enjoying what everyone has a right to enjoy, freedom of movement. The "benefit" is the exact same, whether blacks share in it or not."

No, it is a privilege if it is not afforded to everyone equally, and it hasn't been afforded to everyone equally, historically and presently. It is precisely a white privilege, and often a white male privilege. This is exactly what is meant by white skin privilege, and it is a privilege.

While it is also a basic right, only whites are privileged enough to have full rights, and as our country was originally designed, only white males that owned property had full rights.

It is only by extension of those rights to all that it no longer functions as a privilege.

priv·i·lege ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prv-lj, prvlj)
n.

A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

[CTLawGuy]

253. nowhere in that dictionary definition

does it say anything about the benefit needing to be denied to others. It could be both given to "A class, individual, or caste" as well as "ALL classes, individuals, or castes."


the point of calling it a privilege is to imply that all white people unfairly benefit from discrimination, and therefore all whites are responsible for discrimination, regardless of individual circusmtances.

[kwassa]

270. You are correct

darboy:
"the point of calling it a privilege is to imply that all white people unfairly benefit from discrimination, and therefore all whites are responsible for discrimination, regardless of individual circusmtances."

You are correct in this assessment. It is also true.

[CTLawGuy]

257. furthermore

I conceive a privilege as a benefit that is above and beyond what benefits one should expect to have in an ideal society.

Privilege also implies a benefit that can be taken away if the holder fails to uphold some requirement. (ie children in many households may watch TV as long as they do their homework. If they don't it is taken away.)

On the other hand a right is something that should be expected and is, in an ideal society, not able to be taken away. (ie children have a right to be fed, its not reasonable to starve children as punishment)



As to my driving example; there is another problem with calling it a privilege. Not only is the right to be free from harassment due to race expected, but it is a right that did not generate from discrimination.


Under racism whites may drive and be free of harassment, blacks may not.

Under equality, whites may drive and be free of harassment, blacks may as well.

therefore you cannot say that whites received a "privilege" because blacks were discriminated against. They would have the same right whether there was racism or equality. One does not cause the other.

Stop shifting the scope of the problem in order to blame all white people.

[kwassa]

271. Darboy

darboy:
"I conceive a privilege as a benefit that is above and beyond what benefits one should expect to have in an ideal society."

You have a right to your conceptions, but this is your personal definition and no other.

"Privilege also implies a benefit that can be taken away if the holder fails to uphold some requirement."

As this one can. A white person that marries someone from a different racial or ethnic group will lose some of their white privilege, and become suspect in the white majority. In past times, this meant that the white person had to leave the white community and live in the minority community. It would make it difficult for the white person to find housing, or perhaps a job, or job advancement.

"As to my driving example; there is another problem with calling it a privilege. Not only is the right to be free from harassment due to race expected, but it is a right that did not generate from discrimination."

Oh, but yes it did. All rights, in the history of the understanding of basic human rights, developed from their abrogation. It was the absence of rights that created the development of thought about those rights in the first place.

And, I am not blaming all white people, but I do believe your thinking is exactly backwards.

[CTLawGuy]

277. is it loss of "privilege"?

or loss of rights?

Are we fighting so that blacks can have "privileges", or are they "rights"?

so the right to be free from harassment by the cops came about because blacks were discriminated against? I don't agree.

Rights are based on our values. We value freedom and privacy in this country, that's why we have a right not to be harassed by the police.

We have freedom of religion because we didn't want the government nosing in our consciences.


You have yet to explain to me how denying blacks the right to be free from harassment CAUSED whites to have that right. It is possible that in society BOTH groups could have those rights. One doesn't flow from the other.

Regarding your response to my assertion that privilege can be lost...

your response was irrelevant. People have the RIGHT to equal treatment in housing, career advancement, etc. if a white person marries a black person, maybe the racist community can deny him those rights, which is a sad fact. But the fact that those who do NOT marry outside their race still retain those rights do not make them mere privileges.


Finally, it is you who is thinking backwards. I don't understand why you authoritarians have to shift the scope of the problem so you can imply that the life lived by white people is somehow unfair. THAT is backwards. It makes much more sense to point out that denying black people the ability to enjoy in those rights is unfair.

I don't understands what motivates you people to attack an entire race of people in a blanket fashion. It only serves to foster resentment and divison among the races which is counterproductive.

[kwassa]

305. White Privilege

darboy:
"You have yet to explain to me how denying blacks the right to be free from harassment CAUSED whites to have that right."

I never claimed that it did.

"Regarding your response to my assertion that privilege can be lost...
your response was irrelevant."

I knew you couldn't debate the point, so now you duck the point by calling it irrelevant. What I said is historically accurate. Frankly, I don't think you know a great deal about the history of race relations in the United States.

Most of what you state is your logical extrapolation of a particular principle. It founders, however, on that history that I've just discussed.

AND, to states that whites enjoy privilege in this country is not to attack them at all. It is simply an observation of how race has functioned and continues to function in this country.

There is quite a bit of writing on the idea of white privilege.

one good essay:
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/whiteprivilege.htm

and here is a definition:

white privilege, a social relation
1. a. A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by white persons beyond the common advantage of all others; an exemption in many particular cases from certain burdens or liabilities.
b. A special advantage or benefit of white persons; with reference to divine dispensations, natural advantages, gifts of fortune, genetic endowments, social relations, etc.
2. A privileged position; the possession of an advantage white persons enjoy over non-white persons.
3. a. The special right or immunity attaching to white persons as a social relation; prerogative.
b. display of white privilege, a social expression of a white person or persons demanding to be treated as a member or members of the socially privileged class.
4. a. To invest white persons with a privilege or privileges; to grant to white persons a particular right or immunity; to benefit or favor specially white persons; to invest white persons with special honorable distinctions.
b. To avail oneself of a privilege owing to one as a white person.
5. To authorize or license of white person or persons what is forbidden or wrong for non-whites; to justify, excuse.
6. To give to white persons special freedom or immunity from some liability or burden to which non-white persons are subject; to exempt.

excerpted from
http://www.whiteprivilege.com/

[CTLawGuy]

306. I believe it is you

who cannot argue the point so you talk about irrelevancies. You mistake things that are basic rights for things that are mere privileges.


A privilege implies something that is above and beyond what basic benefits everyone should expect. Equal and fair treatment is a right that everyone should enjoy. It's a shame that in our past, whites who intermarried lost that right.

The point of calling it a privilege instead of a right is to imply that whites, no matter what their individual circumstances, are unfairly benefitting from the discrimination against blacks. If you call it a right, then whites would correctly believe, "I should not feel guilty about the life that I lead, simply because of my skin color (barring other circumstances)."

By calling a right a privilege you hope to cause white people to think "gee, I get things I don't deserve because blacks are discriminated against. I am responsible for discrimination."

By calling the right to be free from police harassment a "privilege", you imply it was unfairly ill-gotten at the expense of black people. In reality, freedom from police harassment should be enjoyed by all.


Its a misguided means of attempting to spur whites to go along with your agenda by fomenting unwarranted guilt.

Taking another example of the difference between a right and a privilege...

Watching TV is a privilege enjoyed by children. In society we do not believe that watching television is a basic right. If someone does not have the ability to watch TV, it does not concern us as a society.

Being fed is a RIGHT enjoyed by children. If parents failed to feed children, we as society would be horrified.

Driving is also a privilege granted by the state. It is not a violation of human rights (in general) to bar someone from driving. The ability to travel is a RIGHT enjoyed by people. The state cannot arbitrarily imprison people.

Fair and decent treatment is a human RIGHT that no one needs to be made to feel guilty about having. Not only is doing so UNECESSARY to accomplish the goal of equality, it is fundamentally dishonest -- to reduce basic rights to privileges.

Do not imply that the problem is that whites possess these rights, the problem is that minorities DO NOT.

If we both have one apple each and yours is taken away, does it become my fault because my apple was not taken away? Shouldn't the course of action be to get your apple back, rather than to tell me my apple is a "privilege" and imply it is ill-gotten?


Finally, there is a lot of writing on how great communism is too :eyes:

[kwassa]

317. you finally get my point

darboy:
"The point of calling it a privilege instead of a right is to imply that whites, no matter what their individual circumstances, are unfairly benefitting from the discrimination against blacks. "

Exactly, and all whites ARE benefiting from discrimination against blacks, whether they realize it or not. You apparently don't understand that this is true!

"By calling a right a privilege you hope to cause white people to think "gee, I get things I don't deserve because blacks are discriminated against. I am responsible for discrimination."

Also true! This is exactly how it functions in society, your denial not withstanding

[CTLawGuy]

323. ok

now I still don't agree, and now Im not going to listen to you anymore because I don't want to sit around and be blamed for slavery.

Now what did you accomplish there? NOTHING



aside...

are you saying whites dont deserve the right to vote and have their vote counted, or to be free from police harassment, or to be considered for jobs or college admission based on his or her merits, or to live in safe neighborhoods or to have a well funded educational system?


If your aim is to take those things away from me, I am REALLY not going to talk to you anymore.

[chicagiana]

207. Lots of white people ...

There are TONS of white people out there who do NOT have the same socio-economic advantages as you. They should be entitled to the same social reparations as members of any oppressed class.

[LDS Jock]

77. would you care to elaborate?

We need more input from your point of view, and I'd love to hear what you have to say.

[mark414]

98. well, basically...

this is what i see, responses on some of these threads

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3075876&mesg_id=3075876&page=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3060205&mesg_id=3060205&page=

i just see this whole attitude about "white victimization" and a lot of people talking about "reverse racism" as if it actually existed and some even going so far as to deny the idea of white privilege

it's getting more and more vocal on all of the boards and it's really disheartening and sickening

[Amaya]

101. I can't believe how many on this thread are misinformed

Some folks need to read a little history about slavery and how the effects are still with us before spouting off ridiculous statments.

By the way, I didn't realize how much bigotry is on the DU, simply fucking amazing.

[mark414]

102. i am more and more disoriented by this place everyday

when i first started posting i thought this was the greatest place in the world! a bunch of people who hated bush as much as me!

but i spend less and less time on here as the days go by because what i see is so bad to the point of unbearable

[chicagiana]

208. If the idea is opposed so strongly here ...

If the idea is so strongly opposed here on a liberal forum, it should give you an idea of how it is received by the general public.

[Jack_DeLeon]

129. I voted no...

why should I as a Mexican-American pay for slaves that my family never owned.

The largest minority group in the US are Hispanics, why should we pay reparations?

[gottaB]

179. Congress has the power to collect taxes, and the duty to pay debts

That is the law of the land.

Under the provisions of the constitution (article 1, 8), congress has power to lay and collect taxes, etc., "to pay the debts" of the United States. Having power to raise money for that purpose, it of course follows that it has power, when the money is raised, to appropriate it to the same object. What are the debts of the United States within the meaning of this constitutional provision? It is conceded, and, indeed, it cannot be questioned, that the debts are not limited to those which are evidenced by some written obligation, or to those which are otherwise of a strictly legal character. The term "debts" includes those debts or claims which rest upon a merely equitable or honorary obligation, and which would not be recoverable in a court of law if existing against an individual. The nation, speaking broadly, owes a "debt" to an individual when his claim grows out of general principles of right and justice,--when, in other words, it is based upon considerations of a moral or merely honorary nature, such as are binding on the conscience or the honor of an individual, although the debt could obtain no recognition in a court of law. The power of congress extends, at least, as far as the recognition and payment of claims against the government which are thus founded. To no other branch of the government than congress could any application be successfully made, on the part of the owners of such claims or debts, for the payment thereof. Their recognition depends solely upon congress, and whether it will recognize claims thus founded must be left to the discretion of that body. Payments to individuals, no of right, or of a merely legal claim, but payments in the nature of a gratuity, yet having some feature of moral obligation to support them, have been made by the government, by virtue of acts of congress appropriating the public money, ever since its foundation. Some of the acts were based upon considerations of pure charity. A long list of acts directing payments of the above general character is appended to the brief of one of the counsel for the defendants in error. The acts are referred to, not for the purpose of asserting their validity in all cases, but as evidence of what has been the practice of congress since the adoption of the constitution. See, also, among other cases in this court, Emerson v. Hall, 13 Pet. 409; U. S. v. Price, 116 U.S. 43 , 6 Sup. Ct. 235; Williams v. Heard, 140 U.S. 529 , 11 Sup. Ct. 885. The last-cited case arose under an act of congress in relation to the Alabama claims.

The claims presented on the part of the United States against Great Britain, arising out of the depredations committed by the Confederate vessel Alabama and other designated Confederate vessels, which had sailed from British ports, upon the commerce and navy of the United States during the War of the Rebellion, were by the treaty of Washington concluded May 8, 1871, between the United States and Great Britain, submitted to a tribunal of arbitration called to meet at Geneva, in Switzerland. Certain indirect claims, or war risks, as they were sometimes called, were included by this government in its claims against Great Britain and were presented to the tribunal above named. Great Britain objected to the submission of those claims, on the ground that their consideration was not included in the purview of the treaty. This matter was the subject of some difference of opinion among the representatives of the respective governments, and they were not able to agree upon the subject, when the arbitrators, without expressing any opinion upon the point of difference as to the interpretation of the treaty; stated that these indirect or war claims did not constitute, upon principles of international law applicable to such cases, a foundation for an award of compensation or computation of damages between the nations, and should, upon such principles, be wholly excluded from all consideration of the tribunal in making its award, even if there were no disagreement between the two governments as to the competency of the tribunal to decide them. This declaration was accepted by the president, and those claims were not insisted upon before the tribunal, and were not taken into consideration in making the award. Thus, it is seen that there were no legal claims of the hlders of those war risks upon the government for the payment to them of any sum whatever. The award made by the tribunal, which was paid to the United States by Great Britain, was held to have been made to the United States as a nation (U. S. v. Weld,127 U.S. 51 , 8 Sup. Ct. 1000); and the fund itself came into the treasury as any public moneys of the country.

By the act of June 5, 1882 (22 Stat. 98, c. 195), the court of commissioners of Alabama claims was re-established, and the duty was imposed upon it to receive and examine claims which might be presented, putting them into classes, the second of which was "for the payment of premiums for war risks, whether paid to corporations, agents or individuals for the sailing of any Confederate cruiser." The Heards were owners of claims for "war risks," and congress finally appropriated money to pay a portion of them. Congress thus recognized as proper to be paid a class of claims which had not been taken into consideration by the Geneva tribunal, but which had been decided by that tribunal to have no basis in international law. It is a case, therefore, of the recognition by congress of what it regarded as an equitable claim on the part of the owners of these war risks to be paid some portion of their claims, and the validity of the appropriation was never questioned.

Among the latest examples of payments that are not of right or of any legal claim, but which are in the nature of a gratuity depending upon equitable considerations, are the cases, just decided by this court, of Blagge v. Balch, Brooks v. Codman, and Foote v. Board, reported as one case in 162 U.S. 439 , 16 Sup. Ct. 853. The claims in those cases are what have been known as the "French Spoliation Claims," being based upon depredations of French cruisers upon our commerce prior to July, 1801. An appropriation for their payment was made by congress in 1891, upon the conditions and to the class of persons named in the act. Questions arose as to the proper interpretation of the act, and as to the character of the payments provided for therein. This court held the payments were purposely brought by congress within the category of payments that are not of right, but which are in the nature of a gratuity, and as an act of grace, though founded upon a prior moral or honorable obligation to pay to some one who might be said in some way to represent the original sufferers. No question of the power of congress to make such appropriation was raised by any one.

US v. Realty Company

There can be no question that the congress has the power to make such appropriations as are necessary to pay its debts.

(On edit: I don't mean to imply by this citation that there are no claims of a strictly legal character to be made against the United States in the matter of slavery. It is merely a statement on the the scope and meaning of Article 1, Section 8 powers.)

[Jack_DeLeon]

190. So the answer to my question is...

because we say so. :eyes:

BTW I asked why Hispanics should pay reparations, not how would they.

[gottaB]

192. It answers the question of why, too

Citizens of the United States should pay taxes in order to pay the debts of the United States. Some of those debts are strictly legal in nature, others are not. In any case, the United States has incurred many debts. A citizen born or naturalized in the year 2005 will be responsible for a mountain of debts that have little if any direct bearing on his or her identity as a person, except insofar as he or she is a citizen of the United States.

A more pertinent question at this juncture might be why anybody should single out what is at this point a purely hypothetical debt owed for slavery as an issue on which to contest the obligations of citizenship.

[UdoKier]

73. Because they would be impossible to do fairly.

There are no living ex-slaves, only descendants, and even during slavery, many blacks were free, and some even profited from the slave trade.

Chinese "coolies" were also essentially slaves, as were many European indentured servants.

It just seems impossible to do reparations fairly and with any certainly that the people recieving them are actually the right people.

A better idea would be to have the government pay for college for EVERYONE, and dedicate the program to the millions who were oppressed for all those centuries.

It would serve as a major leg up for those who were really affected by slavery, and a nice break on tuition for everybody else.

Works in Europe...



But the republicans would hate that idea - AN EDUCATED POPULACE! OH, THE HORROR!

[LiberallyInclined]

74. Exactly.

it's an idea that might sound nice...but it could never be realistically implemeted in any fair way that wouldn't bankrupt the country even further.

[LDS Jock]

76. but, with eductated minds.. people might

be able to think independently and not believe all they hear on faux and rush limbaugh

[jeffrey_X]

106. This is not about individual people and their ancestory or connections...

to slavery!

It's about the environments we have created and the vicious cycle of poverty and crime that continue to this day!!!

[msongs]

78. reparations for former slaves............yes...descendants? not

had a nice evening watching the pbs show on slavery part one this week. did not see much I did not know already, except that at the very beginning of the colonies white indentured servants and black slaves were pretty much in the same boat, both having opportunity to fight the system of oppression through the courts of the day. the seperation and codifying laws based on race was a gradual process over a period of years.

reperations for anyone who was a slave? sure. for the descendants? no.
unless one chooses perpetual victimhood, it is obvious that many blacks and whites and hispanics have overcome various social restrictions and/or circumstances of their birth,or class, or upbringing, so it is possible, for those who give it a good try and accept responsibility for their role in their own progress.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[ultraist]

86. Their descendants would inherit the money

Just like wealthy white descendants inherit money from previous generations. Ever heard of a 5th or 6th generation trust?

[chicagiana]

210. So then ...

So then a value would be assigned to each enslaved person. And benefits would be distributed to equally to each descendent.

Such that, a family with 5,000 descendents will get 1/5,0000 share. A family with only 256 descendents would get a 1/256 share????

It's your model!!!

[ultraist]

237. How unrealistic! 1 slave has 5000 living descendants in 2-3 generations?

Why are you using absurd examples that are not in the realm of reality?

I know someone whose great grandmother was a slave and there are only about 15 living descendants in that family. Do you even know any black people?

Native Americans have been issue reperation checks and they had to show they were at least 3/4 Native American. This has been done.

I also said it should be means tested in another post, that will weed out more people.

Apparently, you didn't read the post where I offered one possible way in which it could be implemented.

[chicagiana]

255. 2-3 generations ????

Hmmm ... one generation every 15-20 years (marriage standards were different back then) since 1865 yields a LOT more generations than three. If producing 2-6 kids per generation, that can add up VERY quickly.

Mean child bearing age vs # generations over 140 years.

13: 10.7
14: 10
15: 9.3
16: 8.75
17: 8.25
18: 7.8
19: 7.4
20: 7
21: 6.6
22: 6.4
23: 6.1
24: 5.8

OK, there are probably some demographers out there who can add in additional variables including # of children, average periods between children, and infant mortality rates among first borns.

140 years would practically lead to AT LEAST SIX generations assuming a mean reproduction period of 23 years (WAY OLD by the periods standards (and by TODAYS standards as well in particular communities). How old is this person who's great nana was a slave???

Now if any native tribe was issued reparations, it was to the tribe, not to the individual. The individual would need a certain heritage to show membership and "vestment" in the tribe.

Yes, I DO know black people.

[ultraist]

263. A generation is NOT 15 years! another hysterical falsehood,

Your formula is bogus

You even FAILED to factor in how many blacks had children with whites, which would weed them out.

[chicagiana]

283. Several "averages" listed ...

I didn't intend this to be complete. I intended it to be a rough guess a little beyond saying "2-3" generations.

As you see, if the average age between first children is 23 years, you have 6 generations. I think 23 years is GENEROUS since people got married VERY young during that period. And when your talking about the SOUTH (where marriage age was often 13) your probably talking about first children on average between ages 14-17.

And as I noted, the recent trend is YOUNGER and YOUNGER.

But if you're so gung ho on reparations, tell me how it would affect the tendencies for black junior high girls having babies.

[pnutchuck]

311. "Weed them out"?

Ultraist, you've made some very nice arguments, I've read all your threads here, but I'm surprised at this phrase. 1/16 is the delineating factor for Native American proof. I know because I'm Kiowa. The reason for such a pitance of blood required to receive reparations is the rape and breed factor. Many states offered land or livestock if a man would marry a native woman. The logic was to "weed" them out. And that is exactly what has happened over the centuries of American expansion and "occupation".

I agree with you on many of your posts, but I also agree with Gia on the generational factor, and with other poster that a lump sum payment could effectively harm AA and would be far better served as scholarships, neighborhood development, housing loans and so forth.

[jeffrey_X]

111. Yep we're all in the same boat.

"..it is obvious that many blacks and whites and hispanics have overcome various social restrictions and/or circumstances of their birth,or class, or upbringing, so it is possible, for those who give it a good try and accept responsibility for their role in their own progress."


:eyes:

[RPM]

79. Only if they are red state only reparations... n/t

[Syrinx]

140. why is that?

New York was the capital of slave-trading.

[qs04]

80. I lost two family members in the so-called Civil War...

Both were in the Union Army. I'll agree to slavery reparations when the recipients pay me for the services rendered by my family.

And excuse me if that idea was expressed earlier in the thread, I really don't feel like wading through 80+ posts just now.

[tx_dem41]

94. It was expressed, but that's ok.

The soldiers were compensated (through pay). Sadly, the slaves never have been paid for 10s of years of work (individually) and 250 years of work (collectively). Yet, corporations built on this free labor thrive today, as do the shareholders, employees, and customers of those corporations. We are all still part of the crime today through malevolent or passive ignorance.

[chicagiana]

212. White immigrants toiled away as wage slaves ...

Most white immigrants were virtual captives of corporate empires in corporate towns. At the end of two weeks they would often end up owing the company more than when they started.

Shouldn't these people be entitled to reparation when the effect is the same????

[tx_dem41]

222. Possibly. But, to equate their experience which was bad...to slavery

where your family could be sold off as property? I don't agree with that equation.

[Freddie Stubbs]

82. Any former slave should be able to seek reparations from those who

enslaved them. Anthing further than that would open up a can of worms that no one would want to deal with.

Should the descendents women be compensated because they did not have the right to vote?

[Tinoire]

83. Yes. For. n/t

[0rganism]

88. The best form of reparations we can give are sound public institutions

not half-assed HUD ghettos crumbling at their foundations from underfunding and neglect.

not overcrowded dangerous schools with teachers who can't teach and administrators who can't adjust.

not racist cops who figure that any black who drives a nice car is a thief or a drug dealer.

not a minimum wage that languishes under 12 years of inflation at a time.

not mandatory minimum sentencing that scars a disproportionate quantity of black males for life.

WE THE PEOPLE NEED TO START CARING AGAIN.

We need to make an honest effort to provide the federal, state, and local revenue base needed to refurbish public housing and provide decent, well-maintained public schools with classrooms and staff adequate to their mission. We need to relentlessly prosecute police who abuse their authority, and learn how to apply the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments again in the spirit they were conceived. And we need our business owners to take the responsibility for the well-being of their workforce, whether by agressive unionizing or electing congresspeople who will link minimum wage and rent control directly to inflationary increases.

This is basic. We owe it to all society: whites, blacks, browns, reds, yellows, and everything in between. People from every race and gender have suffered greatly under the yolk of economic and racial oppression; there is no fair way to sort out exactly who is owed exactly what in retrospect. But we can do everything within our means to make sure that its long-term effects die out as quickly as possible while remembering the many struggles for equality clearly from generation to generation so future societies can avoid the bigotry that has so afflicted us over the years -- and, sadly, still does.

The best and most equitable reparations we have to give are those that directly address present conditions. Let's settle those first, and then we can see if anything else is possible.

[Spider Jerusalem]

91. A very bad idea, for several reasons.

First, it endorses the notion of collective guilt, which is as idiotic as "original sin" (and in this case not much different). Secondly, because there are many millions of people in this country whose ancestors had NOTHING whatsoever to do with slavery (the greatest period of immigration to the United States took place AFTER the Civil War). Thirdly, because slavery ended 140 years ago, and, while racial discrimination is still a very real thing in this country, no one alive today can seriously claim to have suffered due to slavery.

[mark414]

95. uh yes they can

the effects of slavery are still felt today, saying otherwise is just ignorant

[ultraist]

96. Multi generational advantages and disadvantages, to name one

I was at least the 5th generation in my family to go to college. Each generation in my family inherited some money (not a lot) and a lot of privilege/advantages that most blacks have not.

[mark414]

103. you are a smart one

i've read some of your other posts and replies on topics similar to this...glad to see other white folks who get it

[ultraist]

115. Thanks and back at ya!

The funny thing is, the more I read about this, the more I realize how little I do know. (Years ago, I did however, have an excellent black history professor which provided me with the basics).

[chicagiana]

214. MANY MORE WHITES ...

Many more whites did not. They toiled generation after generation in factories just like black folk. In many cases, they suffered the same types of discrimination as blacks often being called "white niggers". Don't they deserve reparations too???

The reparation mentality is the notion that somehow this condition and state is unique to black people. It IS NOT. What you're trying to do is transform a CLASS WAR into a RACE WAR. And I'm sure that the fat cats on top of the system just LOVE the notion of reparations because it keeps the races at each others throats for yet another generation.

[ultraist]

256. Ya, right, whites have had it just as bad as blacks. Racism doesn't exist.

:eyes:

WHY THEN, is the percentage of blacks in poverty THREE TIMES as high as the percentage of whites in poverty?

24% of blacks in poverty vs. 8% of whites in poverty
(US CENSUS BUREAU STATS)

EXPLAIN WHY THAT IS.

[mark414]

278. yeah, people called my irish immigrant ancestors niggers too

and i know all about NINA and the filthy tenements and all of that. but it doesn't matter. once they figured out that they looked like the english folk, they fit in no problem.

and i agree that class is an enormous issue in this country that is far overlooked.

but you cannot separate class from race when there are dire class inequalities between the races.

even comparing poor white folks with poor black folks you can get an idea of how bad the problem really is.

poor white people are much more likely to live in all white, typically middle class (low crime, low poverty) neighborhoods. poor white kids are more likely to go to middle class schools that are fairly well funded. poor white kids are more likely to go to college.

and on and on and on.

yes, class IS an issue but you cannot separate it from race.

[jeffrey_X]

107. Are you serious?

"Thirdly, because slavery ended 140 years ago, and, while racial discrimination is still a very real thing in this country, no one alive today can seriously claim to have suffered due to slavery."

Go tell that to all the little boys and girls who are born into the projects and ghettos every day.

Go tell that to all of the innocent black men who were convicted by all white juries. Christ!! There are still innocent black men being released from prison today for crimes they didn't committ.

This place kills me.

[mondo joe]

112. Then you're talking Racism reparations, not slavery reparations.

If you're talking about the effects of racism today, that's racism reparations, not slavery reparations.

African Americans today are not oppressed today BECAUSE their ancestors were slaves but because THEY are not white.

[jeffrey_X]

116. How did racism and oppression against black people start?

Slavery? Jim Crow? Segregation?

Racism against blacks is a vicious cycle that started with slavery.

[mondo joe]

118. No, Racism Produced Slavery, not the Reverse

If Racism weren't there to begin with, slavery would not have taken the form it did.

[jeffrey_X]

120. Slavery had nothing to do with racism and everything to do with...

capitalism, greed, wealth. Slavery was purely economic. Hard to start paying for labor when you've had it free for all of those years.

[mondo joe]

123. If slavery were purely economic it would not have been limited

If slavery were purely economic it would not have been limited to blacks as it ultimately was.

But in fact it was ultimately limited to one race.

Racism is responsible for American slavery. Slavery did not produce racism.

[Nikia]

130. Actually, they tried using Native Americans first

Unfortunately, they tended to get sick and die. They also tended to run away. They started importing African slaves and found that they survived better, less likely to run away in a strange, and worked out better as slaves than the Native peoples.
What we forget is that slavery did not start in the New World. Other Africans enslaved Africans for centuries before the Europeans came into the slave trade. For the most part, the European slave buyer would show up with a boat and money and did not go out and kidnap anyone. The North American slave trade did increase the demand for slaves, which probably did increase the total number of enslaved people.
Europeans were indentured servants, but were found to be less suitable for plantation work because they were less used to the climate and came down with malaria more often than the Africans, many who were naturually immune (recessive sickle cell trait gives immunity to malaria). They were also more likely to run away. Before racism was prevelent, they had also enlisted slaves to join with them against their masters.
Racism became a way to justify African slavery amongst a the Christian colonists who embraced the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is true that racism may have existed before slavery, but it was not the cause of slavery and slavery greatly increased racism in the colonies, which later became the U.S.

[mondo joe]

137. Black people today are oppressed because of race, not slavery.

Natives also had enough of a power base to fight, to run away, to resist. Didn't make sense to pursue that option.

And I think the reason WHITE slavery didn't last has more to do with race than resistence to malaria. Slavery was around in the US before the southern plantations.

Racism and economics fueled slavery. But slavery does not fuel racism.

When white cops harass a black kid it's because of racism, not slavery. When a black woman is told an available apartment is for rent it's because of racism, not slavery.

Where a case can be made regarding harm directly related to reparations I think there might be something that can be addressed. It's one of the reasons I support affirmative action.

But otherwise what's being talked about is racism reparations, which is a very different thing.

[Nikia]

144. But it is the cause ultimately

The Southern plantation was around by the time slavery was common and predominately black although the crops were different:rice, sugar cane, and then tobacco. I am not saying that racism didn't play a part in causing the institution to become exclsuively black. It is much easier to keep someone a slave for life and make their children slaves if they are easily distinguishable from non slaves.
I do think that slavery intensified racism, originally to justify slavery, and is one reason that Southerners tend to be more racist than Northerners. To them, slave=inferior and slave=black. Just after the Civil War, people who had been, by law, been inferior to whites suddenly weren't inferior by law. Many Conferates were stripped of their rights under the law while those who they had grown up with being inferior, by law, were given rights. This angered many of them and they went back to oppressing the freed blacks while they could by Jim Crow Laws. These laws weren't eliminated until the 1960's. Many people today were alive when this happened. Of course, there were whites who were upset that no one was inferior to them under the law. Some of them were still upset and taught this attitude to their children. We shouldn't pretend either that people aren't affected by growing up inferior under the law either.

[noiretextatique]

163. pretense and denial are the american way

on the subject of slavery and racism.

[Spider Jerusalem]

143. Utterly and totally wrong.

You should try reading some history. Slavery existed in Africa long before any slaves were exported from Africa. The earliest African slave traders were victorious tribes selling off their captives, and Arabs. LONG before any whites got into the act. What we think of as "racism" was a nineteenth-century perversion of Charles Darwin's ideas, which was used as a JUSTIFICATION for slavery. To say "racism produced slavery" is astoundingly ignorant.

[noiretextatique]

171. for reparations, but i know it will never happen

every thread on the subject here further convinces me of that.

[msongs]

175. afrcians used to enslave other africans until the found out they

could get better goodies by selling their own african slaves to the white guys with better toys.

white people were just cashing in on what black people were doing to each other long before the white man ever appeared.

human racism is something that has been with people since people began.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[ultraist]

126. My adopted black son, will be the FIRST in his biological family to go to

college. His biological grandmother grew up with Jim Crow laws, his great grandmother was a sharecropper (essentially a *free* slave) in the early 1900's and her mother was a slave. No one in his family has ever owned property.

He is essentially only two generations from slavery. Just because the Emancipation Proclamation was written, doesn't mean blacks had access to opportunity.

(We have an open adoption)

[Placebo]

117. You are 100% correct.

:thumbsup:

[ultraist]

139. 100% correct that blacks under a certain income deserve reparations?

Or that blacks who have been adopted by upper middle class white families shouldn't receive reparations?

I agree with both. I think it should be means tested. Those, that defied the odds and are exceptions to the rules, don't need it. Most people are not exceptions to the rules and deserve it.

[Nikia]

100. I'd have to say no

For a couple of reasons. The newly freed slaves should have been justly compensated, as they were promised, but I believe that never happened. If there were reparations paid, it would be paid to the descendents of slaves. To be fair, it would have to be paid to only and everyone who could prove that they were descended from an American slave of African descent. That might inlcude some people who are not considered black. Reparations would be paid out of the budget. There of course is the question of how much should be paid to each person, which may be a big question. A small amount might be more of an insult than nothing at all. A large amount would be costly and might result in further cutting of social programs to pay for the reparations.
Reardless of the amount of the reparations, there may be a large amount of hostility from people who did not get reparations. This could be a very bad thing and actually increase racial tensions.
It doesn't matter my personal opinion on whether or not descendents of slaves deserve reparations. What matters what is good and practical and realistic for this country.

[barb162]

104. reparations can't be paid in a just manner

DO you ask/tell people to pay whose families weren't even here before 1866? For families that were here then and fought hard against slavery, are they supposed to pay?

[mondo joe]

108. Firmly against.

There is no way to fairly take or distribute assets.

And whenever people say things like "racial oppression still exists" it indicates that this is not about slavery reparations but about unfairness reparations which isn't limited to african americans.

If we say most African Americans today are descended from slaves I have no problem offering scholarships to try to level the playing field a bit.

[Placebo]

109. 100% Against

No offense, but so many segments of American society have been persecuted since the beginning, albeit not slaves, but still discriminated against.

Frankly, it seems unfair to give someone whose ancestors might have been slaves, our money, even though we've never done anything to them! What sort of economic sense does it make? None. Where's the logic in it? There is none. My neighbor gets a huge sum of our money because they're black, and I don't because I'm white? It's absurd. Why is money the answer anyway? We should continue the fight to end racism and repair the damage left by slavery in our society through public discourse, not like this. I thought the point of America was hard work and personal responsibility, not a free ride. Anyone who supports slave reparations doesn't understand what it is to be an American, considering it's one of the most un-American ideas to come along in some time. :eyes:

[ultraist]

138. Jim Crow laws, a DIRECT RESULT of slavery lasted into the 1960s

Gee, I wonder what percentage of blacks compared to whites were given mortgages by banks to purchase property (homes)? We KNOW there are big gaps even today. And we KNOW that homeownership is one of the MAIN vehicles for transimission of weatlh (be it big or small) from one generation to the next.

Access to education has a MAJOR impact on access to opportunity and has multi generational effects.

http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/jim_crow_laws.htm
Jim Crow" Laws
Click to see larger image. ( K) From the 1880s into the 1960s, a majority of American states enforced segregation through "Jim Crow" laws (so called after a black character in minstrel shows).

Nurses No person or corporation shall require any white female nurse to nurse in wards or rooms in hospitals, either public or private, in which negro men are placed. Alabama
Buses All passenger stations in this state operated by any motor transportation company shall have separate waiting rooms or space and separate ticket windows for the white and colored races. Alabama

Railroads The conductor of each passenger train is authorized and required to assign each passenger to the car or the division of the car, when it is divided by a partition, designated for the race to which such passenger belongs. Alabama

Restaurants It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment. Alabama

Pool and Billiard Rooms It shall be unlawful for a negro and white person to play together or in company with each other at any game of pool or billiards. Alabama

Toilet Facilities, Male Every employer of white or negro males shall provide for such white or negro males reasonably accessible and separate toilet facilities. Alabama

Intermarriage The marriage of a person of Caucasian blood with a Negro, Mongolian, Malay, or Hindu shall be null and void. Arizona

Intermarriage All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent to the fourth generation inclusive, are hereby forever prohibited. Florida

Cohabitation Any negro man and white woman, or any white man and negro woman, who are not married to each other, who shall habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room shall each be punished by imprisonment not exceeding twelve (12) months, or by fine not exceeding five hundred ($500.00) dollars. Florida

Education The schools for white children and the schools for negro children shall be conducted separately. Florida

Juvenile Delinquents There shall be separate buildings, not nearer than one fourth mile to each other, one for white boys and one for negro boys. White boys and negro boys shall not, in any manner, be associated together or worked together. Florida

Mental Hospitals The Board of Control shall see that proper and distinct apartments are arranged for said patients, so that in no case shall Negroes and white persons be together. Georgia

Intermarriage It shall be unlawful for a white person to marry anyone except a white person. Any marriage in violation of this section shall be void. Georgia

Barbers No colored barber shall serve as a barber white women or girls. Georgia

Burial The officer in charge shall not bury, or allow to be buried, any colored persons upon ground set apart or used for the burial of white persons. Georgia

Restaurants All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license. Georgia

Amateur Baseball It shall be unlawful for any amateur white baseball team to play baseball on any vacant lot or baseball diamond within two blocks of a playground devoted to the Negro race, and it shall be unlawful for any amateur colored baseball team to play baseball in any vacant lot or baseball diamond within two blocks of any playground devoted to the white race. Georgia

Parks It shall be unlawful for colored people to frequent any park owned or maintained by the city for the benefit, use and enjoyment of white persons...and unlawful for any white person to frequent any park owned or maintained by the city for the use and benefit of colored persons. Georgia

Wine and Beer All persons licensed to conduct the business of selling beer or wine...shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room at any time. Georgia

Reform Schools The children of white and colored races committed to the houses of reform shall be kept entirely separate from each other. Kentucky

Circus Tickets All circuses, shows, and tent exhibitions, to which the attendance of...more than one race is invited or expected to attend shall provide for the convenience of its patrons not less than two ticket offices with individual ticket sellers, and not less than two entrances to the said performance, with individual ticket takers and receivers, and in the case of outside or tent performances, the said ticket offices shall not be less than twenty-five (25) feet apart. Louisiana

Housing Any person...who shall rent any part of any such building to a negro person or a negro family when such building is already in whole or in part in occupancy by a white person or white family, or vice versa when the building is in occupancy by a negro person or negro family, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five ($25.00) nor more than one hundred ($100.00) dollars or be imprisoned not less than 10, or more than 60 days, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court. Louisiana

The Blind The board of trustees shall...maintain a separate building...on separate ground for the admission, care, instruction, and support of all blind persons of the colored or black race. Louisiana

Intermarriage All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent, to the third generation, inclusive, or between a white person and a member of the Malay race; or between the negro a nd a member of the Malay race; or between a person of Negro descent, to the third generation, inclusive, and a member of the Malay race, are forever prohibited, and shall be void. Maryland

Railroads All railroad companies and corporations, and all persons running or operating cars or coaches by steam on any railroad line or track in the State of Maryland, for the transportation of passengers, are hereby required to provide separate cars or coaches for the travel and transportation of the white and colored passengers. Maryland

Education Separate schools shall be maintained for the children of the white and colored races. Mississippi

Promotion of Equality Any person...who shall be guilty of printing, publishing or circulating printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between whites and negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine or not exceeding five hundred (500.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both. Mississippi

Intermarriage The marriage of a white person with a negro or mulatto or person who shall have one-eighth or more of negro blood, shall be unlawful and void. Mississippi

Hospital Entrances There shall be maintained by the governing authorities of every hospital maintained by the state for treatment of white and colored patients separate entrances for white and colored patients and visitors, and such entrances shall be used by the race only for which they are prepared. Mississippi

Prisons The warden shall see that the white convicts shall have separate apartments for both eating and sleeping from the negro convicts. Mississippi

Education Separate free schools shall be established for the education of children of African descent; and it shall be unlawful for any colored child to attend any white school, or any white child to attend a colored school. Missouri

Intermarriage All marriages between...white persons and negroes or white persons and Mongolians...are prohibited and declared absolutely void...No person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood shall be permitted to marry any white person, nor shall any white person be permitted to marry any negro or person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood. Missouri

Education Separate rooms be provided for the teaching of pupils of African descent, and said rooms are so provided, such pupils may not be admitted to the school rooms occupied and used by pupils of Caucasian or other descent. New Mexico

Textbooks Books shall not be interchangeable between the white and colored schools, but shall continue to be used by the race first using them. North Carolina

Libraries The state librarian is directed to fit up and maintain a separate place for the use of the colored people who may come to the library for the purpose of reading books or periodicals. North Carolina

Militia The white and colored militia shall be separately enrolled, and shall never be compelled to serve in the same organization.No organization of colored troops shall be permitted where white troops are available, and while white permitted to be organized, colored troops shall be under the command of white officers. North Carolina

Transportation The...Utilities Commission...is empowered and directed to require the establishment of separate waiting rooms at all stations for the white and colored races. North Carolina

Teaching Any instructor who shall teach in any school, college or institution where members of the white and colored race are received and enrolled as pupils for instruction shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each offense. Oklahoma

Fishing, Boating, and Bathing The Commission shall have the right to make segregation of the white and colored races as to the exercise of rights of fishing, boating and bathing. Oklahoma

Mining The baths and lockers for the negroes shall be separate from the white race, but may be in the same building. Oklahoma

Telephone Booths The Corporation Commission is hereby vested with power and authority to require telephone companies...to maintain separate booths for white and colored patrons when there is a demand for such separate booths. That the Corporation Commission shall determine the necessity for said separate booths only upon complaint of the people in the town and vicinity to be served after due hearing as now provided by law in other complaints filed with the Corporation Commission. Oklahoma

Lunch Counters No persons, firms, or corporations, who or which furnish meals to passengers at station restaurants or station eating houses, in times limited by common carriers of said passengers, shall furnish said meals to white and colored passengers in the same room, or at the same table, or at the same counter. South Carolina

Child Custody It shall be unlawful for any parent, relative, or other white person in this State, having the control or custody of any white child, by right of guardianship, natural or acquired, or otherwise, to dispose of, give or surrender such white child permanently into the custody, control, maintenance, or support, of a negro. South Carolina

Libraries Any white person of such county may use the county free library under the rules and regulations prescribed by the commissioners court and may be entitled to all the privileges thereof. Said court shall make proper provision for the negroes of said county to be served through a separate branch or branches of the county free library, which shall be administered by custodian of the negro race under the supervision of the county librarian. Texas

Education shall provide schools of two kinds; those for white children and those for colored children. Texas

Theaters Every person...operating...any public hall, theatre, opera house, motion picture show or any place of public entertainment or public assemblage which is attended by both white and colored persons, shall separate the white race and the colored race and shall set apart and designate...certain seats therein to be occupied by white persons and a portion thereof , or certain seats therein, to be occupied by colored persons. Virginia

Railroads The conductors or managers on all such railroads shall have power, and are hereby required, to assign to each white or colored passenger his or her respective car, coach or compartment. If the passenger fails to disclose his race, the conductor and managers, acting in good faith, shall be the sole judges of his race. Virginia

Intermarriage All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mulattos, Mongolians, or Malaya hereafter contracted in the State of Wyoming are and shall be illegal and void. Wyoming

[Placebo]

147. What's your point?

:shrug:

[ultraist]

157. Is there a reason you have those blinders over the eyes on your avatar?

How apropos!

[mondo joe]

113. Might be okay if you have only Christians pay.

Slavery is biblically endorsed after all.

[Charon]

250. Who pays

Have to add Muslims also. Slavery is sanctioned in the Koran as long as they are not Muslim, Christian, or Jews.

[gollygee]

119. I guess it depends on how it would be done

I don't like the idea of a cash payment. It would end up being like $100 per person or something and then the repugs would use that as an excuse to end affirmative action, which I personally think is more important.

Maybe a set of special benefits, like something to offset college expenses and home ownership or something? I don't know really; I haven't thought it through enough.

And then who specifically gets it? And how is it funded? There are a lot of specifics to think through, but I don't mind the idea of reparations.

[jeffrey_X]

124. This is the bigger question in my mind....how would it be done?

The whole cash payment to all black people has everyone up in arms. I don't think it should ever work like that.

I would like to see some type of scholarship or college credit for disadvanted African Americans.

[ultraist]

127. It wouldn't be cash for all blacks

I think it should be only for those below a certain income for starters. My adopted son, for instance, doesn't need it, because we are going to pay for his college.

I think it should be means tested and given in the form of education vouchers or a down payment voucher, with a gov't loan, for a property.

Gov't loans for buying property already exist for low income homeowners but not everyone qualifies. I think this door should be opened wider to increase the number of black homeowners.

http://www.brook.edu/es/urban/publications/rusk.pdf#search='percentage%20of%
Home equity is the typical American family’s most important financial asset, and an important vehicle for transmitting wealth from generation to generation. Whether the value of the family home declines, is stable, or grows is vital to a family’s economic
future.

Over the past decade federal policy has emphasized increasing the
percentage of Americans who own homes, and especially increasing
minority homeownership, since their ownership rates have lagged behind those of whites.

[jeffrey_X]

128. I agree...

I'm surprised at the backlash here at DU. Most are trying to pin this issue on being a decendent of a slave rather than looking at what slavery has done as a whole to our society.

I thought this place was supposed to be liberal.

[Amaya]

131. Some on this thread are not informed about history...

and the repercussions of that history.

It's quite disheartening.

[ultraist]

132. Surprise, surprise!

Racism is alive and well even amongst many white Democrats.

It's AMAZING to me that people refuse to acknowledge that someone who comes from generations of homeowners and/or educated relatives (OR generations who were not subjected to segregation laws), are more privileged than those who haven't.

We KNOW far fewer blacks are homeowners and hold degrees and we KNOW that barriers to these opportunities were huge up until the late 1960's and still exist today. UNREAL that people fail to accept the aftermath of slavery and the CURRENT conditions due to racism.

1954 Brown vs. Board of Education: I wonder if those same people have ever heard of that ruling? shhheeeesh.

[ThorsHammer]

193. Excellent idea, I like that a lot

I think that might be the ideal way to go about this. Most people would support this a lot more than a cash payment. Additionally, this would help disadvantaged black students get an education, which would in turn (hopefully) allow them to better themselves and their community. It would take a while, but would be a great step toward full equality. Also, corporations would likely be much more willing to fund a program like this.

[LDS Jock]

292. I agree with you

I don't think a cash payment is the answer. What started this as a question in my mind was reading over the green party platform, which states

"People of color in this country have legitimate claims to reparations in the form of monetary compensation for centuries of discrimination.:
http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/socjustice.html#999015

Programs like you mention are a better solution than a pay off. I still haven't heard what I would call a great argument for reparations, only accusations of racism if you aren't for them.

[Eugene]

125. Against because reparations are only a quick fix.

[ultraist]

134. Not so! Homeownership or education is NOT a quick fix

Who said it would be one cash payment? Do you have any idea what the multi-generational effects of higher education and homeownership are?

[journalist3072]

133. FOR reparations

There is a debt that is owed to African-Americans. It's just that simple.

It doesn't, or shouldn't, come as a surprise to anyone that the playing field in this country still has not been leveled. I look at reparations as a corrective program- to right past (and current) wrongs.

And if reparations can be paid to surviors of the Holocaust, why not reparations for African-Americans?

[ultraist]

135. a voice of sanity, phew...

[journalist3072]

136. Thank you.....

I appreciate that.

I don't feel that this is a complicated issue at all. It doesn't require much thinking through. It's just common sense. Or at least, it should be common sense.

[chicagiana]

216. Shall I reference Chapelle's show for the answer ????

All the things people reference as the "legacies" of slavery will NOT be cured by ANY amount of reparation.

[ultraist]

239. Of course reparations wont CURE the horrors of slavery,

Just as reparations that Jews receive for the Holocaust wont cure the horrors of that. Or the reparations that families who lost a loved one on 9-11 wont cure their horrors.

Compensation never CURES the horror. If I won a settlement for having my body destroyed by a defective product, it wouldn't CURE my horrors, it merely offsets some of the loss.

Reparation is compensation or atonement. No amount of money can CURE a horror.

Since reparations wont cure the horrors of slavery, we need to also keep Affirmative Action alive.

Is using a quote from a comedian out of context the best you can come up with?

[chicagiana]

252. You didn't get my point ...

...

A big wad of cash no matter HOW big will cure the cultural and social ills within the black within the black community.

The BIGGEST thing that would help the black community is the legalization of drugs thereby defunding the gang culture that is ripping it apart.

For the practical effects of a reparation disbursement, I again refer to Dave Chappell.

[ultraist]

265. No one has said a "big wad of cash" --more hysterical falsehoods

Your comment,chicagiana: "The BIGGEST thing that would help the black community is the legalization of drugs thereby defunding the gang culture that is ripping it apart" is very revealing. It's not the "black gangs that do drugs that are ripping apart the black culture."

Deny racism exists all you like. Being white, I'm very familiar with white code and cloaked racist statements.

You've just proved what I've said many times, racism is not confined to the South.

[chicagiana]

284. You deny the effects of the drug culture ????

So you deny the effects of the drug culture on the black community??? The gangs are fed by drug money. They provide the lure to black youth AWAY from education and towards thuggary.

Gang violence is fed by drug money. As long as the drug money is their minority communities will have the violence that goes along with it.

[journalist3072]

280. Well...

You're right, we cannot erase what happened. However, I believe in the concept of course correction, and I believe in corrective actions and programs.

And I view reparations as such. It's a way for the government to officially acknowledge that slavery was wrong, and begin to pay the debt that is owned to African-Americans.

[gollygee]

142. self deleted

I misread something someone wrote.

[fortyfeetunder]

145. Compare- Reparations to Japanese Americans were...

granted within 50 years after their internment!!!

Compare this to the Black American situation. Not only were reparations denied after slavery was over, new rules enacted by the US government LEGALLY limited the ability of Black Americans to fully participate in the US to (here are some examples of how long it took us to get out of those restrictions)

**schools (until Brown vs Board of Education in 1954, a 94 years after the emanicipation proclamation)
**military personnel (segregation persisted in the US Armed Forces and was not completely eliminated until the 1960's - almost 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation)
**voters (Voting Rights Act of 1965 - 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation), and the 24th Amendment which eliminated poll taxing in Federal elections 99 years after the Emancipation Proclamation
**jobs (Executive Order 11246 in 1965, which required groups that did business with the federal government to take “affirmative action” to remedy past discrimination against African Americans - 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation)
**homeowners (until Fair Housing Act of 1968 -- 103 years after the Emancipation Proclamation)

Also individual states had enacted their own Jim Crow Laws, which limited ability American Blacks ability to make decisons from cradle to grave...dictated which hospital to get treatment for or to have a baby, to the cemetery one could be buried in.

For those of you who claim, well, my ancestors immigrated to the US after slavery, or were not slave owners, therefore I was not affected, I wholly disagree. You did not have these laws limit your ability to fully participate as American citizens. Therefore you did benefit from the legal system that systematically limited Blacks from participating as full US citizens.

IMHO the best reparations would be to fix the entire legal system that restricted Black Americans in the first place.

[Kal Belgarion]

146. I'm for reparations

...to any former slave. Honestly, today's African Americans may be feeling racism that still exists from the 19th century (and earlier), but paying an amount of money to people who happen to be descended from slaves isn't the solution. Working towards greater equality in America, with better schools, housing, employment, wages, and social acceptance is the way to go.

[CTLawGuy]

172. but that solution

doesn't further divide people by race and foster resentment towards black people from white people who feel that their having to pay reparations is unfair.

and it doesn't make use of the same collectivist thinking that generates racism in the first place

:eyes:



the best solution is to create an america where we emphasize those things which unify us and to create an america where ALL people have equal opportunity and are treated with fairness and dignity.

the only way to end racism completely is to abolish the concept of race.

The authoritarian liberals on this thread have a collectivist conception of the world. Your fate is inextricably tied to the fate of everyone in your race class, or whatever class they are talking about. Individual differences do not matter. Oprah Winfrey is more oppressed than those lucky white bastards who live in trailer parks in Mississippi and work two minimum wage jobs to keep that meager housing and food on their table.

What is HIGHLY ironic is that collectivism is what fuels racism in the first place. White people thought that black people were all the same simply because they were black - inferior. Assuming things about people because of their race is RIDICULOUS, that is partially why we believe racism to be wrong.

Yet, the authoritarian liberals use those very same collectivist ideas to "oppose racism".



----------------

You cannot end racism by pitting whites against blacks, you will only fan its flames. You can only end racism by recognizing that we are all children of the same God (or nature, if you prefer).

[noiretextatique]

181. the problem with your argument: whites are ALREADY pitted against blacks

something the republicans continue to exploit to win elections. issues like reparations and affirmative action do not create resentment, however the way these issues are framed in this culture, with its history of racism, brings existing resentment to the surface. cultural attitudes about african-americans will not disappear by eliminating the social contruct of race. a few more generations need to die out before that happens.

[CTLawGuy]

187. how can you have attitudes about

something that doesn't exist?

What I mean is, if the concept of race does not exist, how can you generalize based on that non-existent concept?

Also, it is irrelevant whether whites and blacks are already pitted against each other. What you are advocating will have that same effect regardless of the circumstances.

Resentment would happen in terms of reparations, because, in these circumstances they violate terms of fundamental fairness for most people:

1. People who are responsible for creating a harm should atone for that harm.
2. People who are NOT responsible for creating a harm should NOT pay in the stead of those people who ARE.

Most white people do not feel they are responsible for something that happened 100-150 years before they were born. To them, those who are responsible are long dead. Simple framing will probably not counteract this logic.

Analogous to this is the idea that no amount of framing by me can convince you the earth is flat, or that rusty nails make a good breakfast cereal.

[noiretextatique]

268. white people see themselves as "the government"

which is a part of the problem. when the japanese were paid reparations, i don't recall hordes of black, latino, or asian people complaining about their lack of involvement interning japanese americans. and of course, some people weren't alive when the japanese were interned either. of course you are correct about ridding ourselves of the contruct, but you are naive or foolish to think simply doing that will erase the history...or the attitudes passed down from that history.

[CTLawGuy]

286. erasing the attitudes passed down

by history is necessary in order to eliminate the construct of race.

[chicagiana]

217. don't create resentment ?????

... you're kidding right???

I'm not saying that the resentment is necessarily warranted. But no sane person would claim that affirmative action doesn't create resentment.

[noiretextatique]

269. me...sane BLACK person who knows america and its inhabitants well

any excuse will do, like the OJ verdict. i have read statements here from supposedly rational people who claim they would not support affirmative action because of that verdict...is that sane? did the verdict CREATE that resentment? it did not.
any issue, if framed a certain way, can create resentment...even if the proposal is a highly rational one.
let me pose some questions to you:
do you think african-americans suffered any harm from centuries of slavery, and another century of jim crow? the only rational answer is yes, by the way. if that is true...then what should be done about redressing that harm? and furthermore, will ANY solution please who aren't rational in the first place, i.e., those how don't think chattel slavery and american apartheid caused the slightest bit of harm?
the american dilemma on this issue is its bizarre culture of denial on any issue remotely related to race. except of course "reverse discrimination," something that simply had to be addressed immediately and decisively.

[Terran]

149. For reparations, as stated many times before.

You know, we've had this debate a dozen times at DU, and once more I see in this thread the same poorly thought-out reasons why reparations are such a bad idea--it would be too difficult to carry out; my ancestors didn't benefit from slavery; it can't be done fairly; what about Native Americans; it'll hurt us politically; blah blah blah.

I'm glad to see so many supporting reparations. The rest of you need to think about it a little more before you respond. Reparations are the ethical thing to do; there's a lot more to it than that, but what more do you need?

[okcdem]

150. Threads like this

really make me want to switch to the Republican party.

[Terran]

151. Then by all means...

If that's how you feel, you probably should do that.

[jeffrey_X]

152. Maybe you should if you are unwilling to have an open dialogue....

about topics such as this.

Is it really that painful to look at issues objectively from both sides of the fence?

[okcdem]

153. Hmmm...

The Democratic Party should be about equal rights for all. I don't support AA or reparations, because in my opinion, that is minority privilege. Honestly, I'm very tired of all the white guilt threads that keep popping up here at DU.

[jeffrey_X]

155. LOL at putting minority and priviledge in the same sentence...

So I guess you were fine with the unwritten rules of Afirmative Action for whites for most the 20th century?

It's not white guilt, it's called reality.

[CTLawGuy]

173. please explain something to me

1. How is being able to drive around without being harassed by the police (for example) an "unfair benefit", simply because blacks cannot share in it?

The crime is that blacks CANNOT share in it. The crime is NOT that white possess the benefit. How is punishing whites for having that benefit that all people should be able to expect going to solve the problem?

2. Some people argue that if white people in times of Jim Crow and slavery had a job, that was an "unfair" benefit, because of discrimination against blacks. But, how can anyone say with any certainty, that in the absence of racism, that any white person who got a job under racism, would NOT have gotten that job under equality?

What if the white person had been better qualified than all black applicants (under equality) and gotten the job on his merits? Is such a situation IMPOSSIBLE? If you are forced to admit that we don't know how any white person who had a job under racism would have fared under equality, how can you say conclusively that those white people are experiencing an "unfair benefit" which their descendents must then pay for? Aren't they just enjoying a benefit that any person should reasonably expect to enjoy? Why is that unfair?

the unfairness is that blacks were denied the opportunity to be educated and get jobs. That unfairness is what must be corrected.

Life is not a zero sum game. An injustice to some is not necessarily an unfair benefit to others. To attack those who are simply enjoying benefits they reasonably expect to enjoy is silly and does not solve the problem. The problem is, under racism, that blacks cannot partake in those benefits. the solution is to FIX THAT.

[ultraist]

178. I don't think any one is saying it's an "unfair benefit"

What many are pointing out is that whites have had advantages in the sense the playing field is not level. This is not about punishing whites but acknowledging that blacks have been treated unfairly. Whites have enjoyed more access and that is a privilege compared to blacks.

Just as your statement says, "The problem is, under racism, that blacks cannot partake in those benefits. the solution is to FIX THAT."

"Blacks cannot partake in those benefits" (whites can) and we need to be proactive to fix that.

[CTLawGuy]

188. but what you people are saying

is that white people are wrong to benefit from things most people would agree all people should benefit from, just because black people do not necessarily benefit.

The central argument in favor of reparations is that above argument. White people are responsible because they benefitted because their ancestors weren't discriminated against as the blacks ancestors were.


If that arguement is proven false, then there is no reason for a white person to pay any reparations to a black person short of actual discrimination by that white person.

[ultraist]

223. No, I never said whites "are wrong" to be treated fairly

What is wrong is that blacks are treated unfairly. You either believe in fairness or you don't. Believing in fairness for just a few, is not fairness!

I'm all for EQUAL opportunity and for eliminating ALL forms of oppression: racism, sexism, classism, and discrimination against handicapped, and homophobia.

I really don't understand your logic. It seems you are making inferences that don't exist. The simple fact is: Blacks have been treated unfairly and deserve to be compensated and treated fairly in the future.

The whites who created the racist system and help to perpetuate it are wrong, yes. But not all whites perpetuate racism. They all benefit, but not all perpetuate it.

Fortunately, most Democrats do not support racist policies and support AA and other retributive programs.

[CTLawGuy]

227. oh but you are wrong

From your post 132

"It's AMAZING to me that people refuse to acknowledge that someone who comes from generations of homeowners and/or educated relatives (OR generations who were not subjected to segregation laws), are more privileged than those who haven't." (boldness mine)

What this implies is that whites are receiving an unfair benefit (since it is called a privilege) due to discrimination against African Americans.

Your effect in writing that is to make white people feel guilty about not being discriminated against, and to make it seem as though not being discriminated against makes one as guilty as the overt discriminators.

Not being subject to discrimination is not "benefitting from discrimination". I don't understand you authoritarian liberals' need to pass blame on an entire group of people. It does no more than divide us and foster resentment.

[ultraist]

267. Whites have benefitted from discrimination

Explain why 24% of blacks are in poverty and 8% of whites are in poverty. Why is that? Is it possibly because whites are given more access to opportunity?

Have you ever heard the term "level the playing field" or have any idea what that means?

Check out the DEMOCRATIC PARTY website and read up on the party platform. Do some research and see if this provides some insight for you.

[CTLawGuy]

279. I must confess

I see the world differently than you do.

You use the same framework from which racism itself generates: collectivism - the idea that membership of individuals within a social group is the most important aspect of their identity.

This was used to justify racism, and as long as people like you perpetuate it, racism will endure.

under collectivism, all individuals within a social group share the same experience, charactersistics, responsibility, and fate, regardless of individual circumstances.

This idea is stupid when used by southern slave owners to justify why blacks shouldn't be free, and it is equally stupid when used by liberal academics to tar all white people with collective guilt for discrimination.

In the mind of a collectivist, the world is a power struggle among the various social classes, with a fixed amount of power in existence. So, if blacks lose social power, it must be true that whites gained it.

in your conception if black poverty is at 24%, and white poverty is at 8%, then whites must have unfairly stolen power from blacks.

An injustice implies necessarily an unfair benefit.




---------------------
I see the world individualistically. The most important part of a person's identity rests in their individual characterstics and that membership in social groups are secondary.

Ok, so the problem of why 24% of blacks are in poverty and only 8% of whites...

I believe that individual blacks have been shut out of opportunities because of their race, by racist people in power positions. That is wrong, that is an unfairness.

that being said, it is not necessarily an unfairness that any individual white person has gotten a job (who has in fact gotten a job).

In order for you to prove that any white person with a job benefitted from discrimination against blacks, you would have to prove that under total equality, the white person would NOT have gotten that job. That is not possible, short of a case where a highly qualified black person was denied in favor of a lower qualified white person. The reason is, because we do not know how well qualified all the potential black applicants would have been under equality.

Trying to prove that white people have unfairly benefitted from discrimination is neither prudent nor necessary. It is enough to understand that blacks have been treated unfairly. The remedy is not to "punish" white people, but to lift up black people, because we believe that the right to opportunity is something that everyone should enjoy.

In my view, when we see discrimination, we should remedy it. We know it affects individuals, and those individuals who are victims should be compensated.


In individualism, an injustice doesn't imply an unfair benefit. an injustice is an injustice and it should be remedied.

I believe in a level-playing field, however attacking whites will not lead us there, but empowering blacks will.

[ultraist]

159. If you don't support Affirmative Action you might want to consider

the Repukes. The Democratic Platform is clear on this, the Democratic Party SUPPORTS AA.

White guilt is a Repuke term.

Honest and open discussion on what is the best method to level the very uneven playing field is very Democratic like.

Equal Opportunity is a core DEMOCRATIC VALUE.

I'm disturbed by some of the remarks here but I'm glad to see so many willing to have a discussion about it and that MOST here support AA.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ultraist]

180. okc, we are progressive whack jobs because we support black & gay rights?

okc wrote: "So, I'm a Democrat stuck with the progressive whack jobs that seem to flock to this board. I personally think YOU don't have a place in Democratic Party. Is this a party of labor or is it a party for blacks and gay rights? "

:wtf:

FYI: The Democratic Party DOES support black and gay rights. Have you ever read the Party platform?

[okcdem]

184. Obviously

because whites arent welcome.

[ultraist]

202. okcdem: "whites aren't welcome?" I'm white and so are MOST Dems

What on earth are you talking about? Blacks are only 12% of the population.

That's very odd to say that, 'a party that supports Equal Opportunity doesn't welcome whites'.

That type of hateful attitude is what perpetuates racism.

MOST DEMOCRATS ARE WHITE. MANY WHITES SUPPORT EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.

Bush's CULTURE OF HATE: NEONAZISM

White supremacists reach out on billboards
By The Los Angeles Times
Sunday, February 13, 2005

ST. LOUIS — White supremacist groups around the country are moving aggressively to recruit new members by promoting their violent, racist ideologies on billboards, in radio commercials and in leaflets tossed on suburban driveways.

Watching with mounting alarm, civil rights monitors say these tactics stake out a much bolder, more public role for many hate groups, which are trying to shed their image as shadowy extremists and claim more mainstream support.

Watchdog groups fear increased violence from these organizations as they grow. But perhaps an even greater fear is that the new public relations strategy will let neo-Nazis recast themselves as just another voice on the political spectrum — even when that voice might be advocating genocide.

The National Alliance, which calls for ridding the land of minorities, has led the drive to raise the profile of white supremacists. The local chapter spent $1,500 on MetroLink ads here in St. Louis last month, plastering nearly every commuter train car in the city with a blue-and-white placard declaring "The Future belongs to us!" and listing the group's Web site and phone number. "We want to use mainstream advertising to say to the public: We're not a shadowy group. This is what we believe in, and we're proud of it," said chapter leader Aaron Collins. Other chapters of the National Alliance have posted billboards in Utah, Nevada and Florida. The National Alliance even bought a membership list and mailing labels from the Florida Bar Association last year so it could send an eight-page recruitment letter, complete with anti-Semitic cartoons, to 2,500 criminal defense lawyers.

[okcdem]

185. yes....

This is being taken to the extreme and will only alienate white voters.

[noiretextatique]

166. white guilt is self-serving practice, much like masturbation

and it serves pretty much the same purpose...to jerk one's self off.
let's talk about white privilege instead, most especially the privilege of ignorance and denial, which is something all democrats should be concerned about. that privilege keeps helping republicans "win."

[ultraist]

176. Discussing methods in which to level the playing field is not white guilt

I don't have white guilt, I've done quite a lot towards working at promoting equal opportunity, compared to the Average American.

Why is it taboo to discuss programs that are essentially Affirmative Action programs? How can that be a bad thing?

White guilt is a Repuke term used to shut down dialogue that pertains to leveling the playing field.

[noiretextatique]

177. i wouldn't say it is an exclusively republican term

but i agree it's idiotic to use that term when discussing racial equality. not only does it shift focus from the real issue, it also dismisses the importance of the internal work that many still have to do before they can even discuss the topic at hand with a modicum of intelligence. my comment was for the person who believes this topic is about "white guilt."

[BonjourUSA]

154. The Black American people are citizen or not ?

If the answer is "yes", why a part of american citizen would pay anything to the other one ?

And who would pay ? Only the White American people ? With which taxes ?

Excuse me, you say "African-American" or something like that. But I believe you don't say "European-American", why ?

[ultraist]

160. Excuse me, but white Euros weren't seperated from their families, forced

onto slave ships, where many died, and forced to be prisoners while they continued to be beat, raped, and killed.

BTW, ever heard of Irish-American? Or German-American? OR Mexican American?

:eyes:

[noiretextatique]

164. how did america manage to pay japanese internees?

and without all the problems that so many foresee with paying the decendants of slaves? i'm african-american and wasn't even born when america's ugly racist impulses reared its head again during WWII, and segregation was still the law of the land...even as black men fought and died in that war, like all of america's previous wars. should i have to pay for japanese reparations? just a rhetorical question...of course i have no problems with righting past injustices.

[enigami]

158. 40 acres and a mule , or what? n/t

[ultraist]

161. College vouchers and Homeowner down payment vouchers and loans

My proposal for 40 acres (property ownership) and a mule (economic advancement):

Interesting you bring that up, because that had not occured to me when I suggested this further up the thread, but my first idea of what might work, essentially is, 40 acres and a mule.

Two of the major barriers blacks have faced are obstacles to higher education and home ownership. Both of which have very positive multigenerational effects.

The 40 acres was property ownership and the mule was a way to advance economically. Education is the best way to advance economically and owning a home is owning property.

Education and income are strongly positively correlated. (USCB) and homeownership is the main vehicle in which wealth is trasmitted from one generation to the next. Blacks have been deprived of equal access to both of these.

[noiretextatique]

165. pose this question at a site frequented by more african-americans

and your results would likely we reversed. therein lies the crux of issue, in a nutshell.

[montieg]

170. Soon as we get thru repaying American Indians. n/t

[durutti]

182. For. (By "divisive" you mean "makes white people uncomfortable".)

And that is of course why most DUers are opposed to it, and why the Dems won't touch it.

People misunderstand what's meant by reparations. It doesn't mean that every white person would pay more taxes and/or that every black person would get a check in the mail.

Instead, taxes from the general collection (or a tax levied on corporations that profited from slavery) would be used to establish a special fund to establish programs addressing problems that significantly affect the black community, such as AIDS.

The idea of reparations isn't to make the descendants of slaveholders pay, but rather to make the U.S. government pay for having protected the institution of slavery.

White people would have the same access to these programs as black people. This is especially appropriate since many white people have ancestors who were slaves.

Also, you ask about compensation for current discrimination -- but such compensation already exists in the form of affirmative action.

[okcdem]

183. Youre right

Im gone.... going republican.

[gollygee]

195. Bye!

:nopity:

[ultraist]

211. Enjoy the Bush Culture of Hate okcdem! NeoNazism is on the rise

[durutti]

260. Don't bother.

I'm an independent.

[mattclearing]

186. For it.

It's the least we can do. This country was built on the backs of slaves.

There's no way to undo the harm done. But I think it's fair to attempt to make amends.

I believe the lingering injustice of slavery and Jim Crow continue to affect our country in a negative way.

Reparations would be a good faith gesture of respect and acknowledging an unpayable debt.

And don't start with the money. You know it would just go to weapons and ways to spy on people otherwise.

I'd gladly trade in a useless national missile defense system for some true social justice.

[chicagiana]

219. Tobacco and Cotton ...

Tobacco and Cotton was built on the backs of slaves. The agriculture of the north was built by freemen.

And I would trade missle defense for a bottle of water.

[ultraist]

225. NY was the biggest slave trade center, there were slaves in the North

The north was not built only by freemen.

[chicagiana]

251. Slaves go through one harbor ...

... but they don't work there. So you pin the sin on all the inhabitants of New York City, and more generally on the citizens of the Northern states .... what bullshit ...

That's like blaming the black studies department at your average university for gangsta rap.

[ultraist]

266. I didn't "pin the sin on all inhabitants of NYC"

I said Northerners were also complicit, not just Southerners. Twist my words all you like. I've had enough of your hysterical lies.

[chicagiana]

285. Your saying that "all northerners complicit" ????

Or just a small localized community that benefited from cargo handling along with the countless OTHER cargo that went through the port.

You make a VERY broad sweeping statment about MILLIONS of northerners who had NOTHING to do whatsoever with the slave trade. And who were largely hurt by the practice as well through depression of wages.

[MileHiStealth]

189. Sooner or later you will all wake up and realize ....

this all has to do with CLASS and not RACE.
The rich elite create situations to keep the
lower classes divided and at each others throats
over race issues. They are scared shitless that
one day we will realize that they pit us against
each other so that we stay fragmented and easier
to control. If we're fighting amongst ourselves,
we won't be fighting against them.This was
explained to me years ago by a wise old
black gentleman that had a keen eye for
the truth ....

[ultraist]

209. Class is a BIG issue, no doubt

But poor blacks are hit twice as hard as poor whites. They are hit with two forms of oppression, racism and classism.

The socio economic indicators demonstrate quite clearly that blacks are treated very differently than whites are. There are big gaps between blacks and whites on ALL social stratas.

The percentage of blacks in poverty (24%) is 3 times as high as the percentage of whites in poverty (8%).

Why is that?

[txaslftist]

194. Do I qualify?

My father identified himself as Irish, but his grandfather (my great grandfather) married a woman who was half-Cherokee, one-quarter white/european and one-quarter African-American. My mother's folks were mostly Pennsylvania Dutch, with some members who fought on the side of the Union. On another "wing" of my father's line (he was a genuine American mutt) there is a slave-owning family, but I don't know that any of them actually fought on behalf of the confederacy.

If you look at me, I basically look white/anglo/european, but my grandfather looked fairly dark, and my father, despite blue eyes, had rather dark hair.

I know I can trace a single African American in my ancestry, and with luck, more than that. Certainly they were freed slaves.

On the other hand I can also trace slave-holders in my ancestry. Do I owe money or do I get money?

Let me know where to apply, because I could really use some.

[cattleman22]

213. You just described the racial makeup of many Americans

whose families have been in the US for hundreds of years. If reparations were paid to everyone who had one ancestor who was a slave, then many "whites" would receive reparations.

[txaslftist]

215. Well, I'd have to see the balance sheet...

If I'm entitled to more reparations than I have to pay in, I favor reparations. If I owe more than I'm due, I'm against 'em.

[Balbus]

241. Haha!

I can appreciate and honestly frank statement! :toast:

[TWiley]

196. A small group of powerful "co-conspirators" has

abused and enslaved each new generation of immigrant since before the beginning of our nation.

I think it is more important to attack those who keep racism / economic slavery alive today than it is to make reparations to only one group.

Unfortunately, we may come to the same conclusions that those who attacked the WTC did.

At this point, we would be facing a decision to make fundamental changes in our capitalist system. Instead of "legislating the morality of the slaves" (Republican Ideal) we would be attempting to "legislate the morality of the plantation owners" (Democratic Ideal).

The end result would be a two party system where one party (Repubs) would fight for the rights of the capitalists, and the other party (Dems) would fight for the rights of the rest of us. Including the rights of animals and the environment.

If this approach worked out, our species would have a better chance of avoiding extinction and living into the next century.

"Reparations" can be made in a variety of ways. I would hope that we would pick one that would lead to a lasting change.

[chicagiana]

198. What about gay reparations ????

Surely the gay community is suffering from descrimination. Don't they deserve reparations???

What about hispanics, asians and jews??? They're discriminated against. What about bald men and fat people????

[ultraist]

206. SLAVE reperations doesn't negate the fact other groups are oppressed

This is addressing compensation for people whose ancestors 2 or 3 generations back were kidnapped from their country, brought over on slave ships, kept as prisoners to work for free, and beaten, raped, and killed. If you choose to believe that slavery is not the foundation of the oppression of blacks, that's your choice. The fact is, if not for slavery, there would be very few blacks in this country to oppress.

Why would we pay compensation to hispanics and jews? Did our country enslave them?

Your reasoning is illogical. Acknowledging the horors of slavery in no way diminishes the fact the gays and other minorities are oppressed.

It actually helps to create a culture of equal opportunity which benefits all.

[chicagiana]

289. You claim racism hurts blacks ...

... therefore black must be compensated. Yet many other groups are EQUALLY discriminated against. Under your reasoning, they should be entitled to reparations as well.

YOU are not a slave. Nor was your grandfather a slave.

There IS a legacy of racism in this country. But that racism is applied to MANY groups. Even whites suffered it's stigma.

Acknowledging the horrors of slavery does NOT mean reparations. If you want a formal apology from Congress to the SLAVES (not their anscestors), that is 100% appropriate. The heritage of bondage was broken in 1865. Why you CLING to it is beyond me.

[txaslftist]

244. O O O...I'm on my way to being fat!

AND bald...

I'm not gay, but if it means more reparations, I'm willing to give it a shot...

Mo money, mo money, mo money!

[noiretextatique]

272. you post proves what i have learned over the years

many americans are far too ignorant on the subject of slavery in america to be allowed to voice an opinion on the subject. unfortunately, the most ignorant are often the most vocal in their opposition...

[chicagiana]

288. Excuse me but ...

Excuse me but this is a forum. Your allowed to express your opinion as much as you like. I'm merely pointing out how ridiculous the whole slave reparations issue is.

Furthermore, the issue is DESTRUCTIVE. It hurts blacks by creating a cultural and economic crutch. It hurts discourse by creating a wedge debate that keeps poor black folk and poor white folk hating each other.

Dig down far enough and you'll find the powers that be financing the reparation rhetoric. They want to keep the race war alive so that the REAL class war will never be addressed. And there are no lack of politically naive folk looking for a meaningless jesture that will NEVER happen to keep the issue alive.

Bottom line is that racist redneck crackers living in Mississippi trailer parks haven't benefited ONE LICK from slavery. They have VERY racist attitudes as to why they won't give a cent to a black man. But fundamentally the fact is that they haven't really benefitted from system. So they'll be 100% right to take up their rifles and rebel against the federal government if reparations ever happened.

[noonwitch]

234. It's not economically feasable

If black americans were truly being treated as full citizens and didn't feel left out of the american dream, we wouldn't be facing this issue almost 150 years after slavery ended.

[gollygee]

240. Neither is the war in Iraq

:shrug:

[Silverhair]

243. Meanwhile, back in the real world:

Any political party that puts that in their platform is doomed to defeat at all levels. It just won't win any elections, except maybe in a very few districts. If Democrats try to sell this one, ALL states would be red states, by huge margins.

I can think of no idea that would be more racially divisive either.

[noiretextatique]

273. sad, but true commentary on america circa 2005

white people, who will not unite to save their country from fascists, would most certainly unite to stop reparations from being paid to the descendants of slaves.

[noiretextatique]

274. anyone know what happened to the reparations lawsuit?

the one filed by people who proved (via DNA testing) that they were descendants of slaves? if i am not mistaken, i believe the DNA tests were done on the remains of slaves found in the NY burial ground.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

275. i'm torn. i understand and appreciate that a huge injustice was done...

but my family immigrated here from france 75 years ago.

and i am but a nigh broke college student. so i dont know what reparations I could give, really.

[deeplydisturbed]

282. definitely for reparations

I feel that, as a person that has been away for quite a while from DU (not that it really matters), there are some serious issues we all need to deal with as a society. Reparations are one of those issues and therefore important for several reasons. Norms, beliefs, institutional values: all of these things represent what Robert Putnam termed Social Capital, which many consider necessary and sufficient for the building of a vibrant civil society. All of these things are also developed over many generations. If one were to think of the small town mentality held by many in northeast Maine, it is not impossible to believe that they can persist for a long time. Now, relate this to the slavery system and what has happened to not only generations of people but their overall belief systems. It has been severely damaged. This is not to say that reparations need to only be financial, but some corrections for the past are necessary and our system of "affirmative action" is not going to accomplish what it should.

[fujiyama]

287. Reperations for slavery

is a bad idea for several reasons.

Slavery was an evil institution that destroyed families and has left a race here in the US still facing remnants in modern day racism.

But I don't know how slavery reperations would go into effect. Would a certain race in the US get a check in the mail every month? As I mentioned the institution destroyed so many families, it is difficult for many to determine who their ancestors were.

Also, who would pay for such a thing? A large percent of the population that lives here in the US today wasn't even born here. An even larger percent has no relatives that were here during the time slavery was in effect. Most descendents of Eastern Europe and Asia have absolutely no connection to the institution. I don't understand why they are responsible for what this government did over a century ago.

While racism is something that harms ALL of society, it cannot be formed through arbitrary quotas and reperations. It is solved through education and understanding.

The modern day consequences of slavery are what should be cobatted which means that more money should go toward urban schools, healthcare, and helping people find meaningful jobs.

[johnaries]

291. There is no doubt that the US in the past SCREWED the Native

Americans and the Slaves. Personally, my ancestors were poor white trash who never fought "Indians" or who could afford to own "Slaves".

I think the US government should honor it's contracts. It hasn't done that.

But, at the same time, I don't think that today's innocents should be punished for crimes that were performed by people long-dead, who weren't "related" to them.

[johnnie]

294. I don't think it would be the right thing to do

It seems like many of you are just taking the "PC" road here. Does anyone actually think that any reparations would make any difference as to the racial disharmony we now have?
In my opinion, there has been many steps in "paying back" the African American community and many of the programs seem to be working quite well. Of course it isn't perfect, but there are many other people who have been enslaved, oppressed and discriminated against, and most of them have not been compensated in any way.
I'm not a radical feminist or anything, but if you want to talk about people who have been oppressed, look at the history of woman in this country. I'm just saying....

[Dob Bole]

297. Reparations- no. Land redistribution- yes.

The idea behind reparations is that the descendants of slaves should be paid for the work that their ancestors did while they were legally still slaves. There is no precedent for this, and it would just bring about bitterness and division.

On the other hand, I believe the Emancipation Proclamation mentions 16 acres of land, and it wasn't talking about the projecs. We need to seriously shake up land ownership in our country.

[chlamor]

309. Agree

An interesting aspect of the time when African-Americans were getting their "civil rights" is that they were being systematically driven off the land at the highest rate ever. Wendell Berry writes eloquently about this. Land redistribution and perhaps some other economic advantages that are material in nature. Just reparations might not evolve into a generational righting of the multi-generational wrongs.

[TWiley]

298. Intresting thread KICK

[ProfessorGAC]

300. Against For Logistical and Fairness Issues

While i certainly agree that slavery was morally reprehensible, and that racism is still extant, there would have to be some very difficult aspects to this.

Means Testing: Does Bill Cosby, Oprah, Michael Jordan, Robert Johnson (owner of the Bobcats and a multibillionaire) get a slice? How about their families? If so, why? If not, why? It's a pretty thorny situation.

How much financial success does one need to have before one is cut off? Does a $120,000 black accountant get the reparations? If not, why is $120k too much to already have? And if the cut off is $120k, then why would someone making $115k be ok?

And who pays? My family didn't get here until late 1928. Certainly, no matter how noble my family's intentions, they could have done nothing to ameliorate slavery, even if poor sicilian immigrants could have influenced it? How about Cold War refugess who came here in the 1950's, 60's and 70's? How could they be held accountable, just because they're white or Asian?

Do only red states pay? What about folks who moved to red states for their jobs?

Do Asian-Americans pay taxes that go to this? That wouldn't seem just, given that these folks' ancestors weren't exactly treated with hearts and flowers either. And, if we do this, what do we do about the indigenous tribal people. Do we pay them back for what happened to their ancestors? If we do one, how can we NOT do the other?

Would strings be attached to the money? What if a family couldn't trace any lineage to slaves. Do we assume all black Americans are descended from slaves? (Which is probably true, but still has to be assumed.) What about those who lived in the north while slavery was still extant? Are they entitled? What about those who were then subject to Jim Crow? Do we pay twice for twice the harm?

Like i said earlier, i'm on board with the notion that these people were harmed beyond reason by this horrible, societally sanctioned treatment. I just see this as an unworkable proposal that may well solve nothing. A solution that solves nothing is no solution at all.
The Professor

[GumboYaYa]

301. What about reparations for indigenous people?

No one suffered more than America's indigenous people. Over 20 million American Indians were killed by white settlers. The whites stole land and murdered the people. Give the indigenous people Manhattan.

[HamdenRice]

304. Actually they do receive a form of reparations ...

in a number of ways. The are litigating broken treaties. The Alaska Native claims act gave back vast tracts of property and resources. Native sovereignty carves out valuable statutory exceptions, like the right to have casinos.

[GumboYaYa]

316. All true, but American Indians have fought for generations for the

paltry scraps they have been thrown. Honestly, the casinos might be nice for the few remaining members of the tribes, but they don't come anywhere close to compensating for the lives lost or the land stolen.

I'm not opposed to reparations for persons descended from slaves or impacted by segregation, but I think we shouuld include American Indians in that group as well. To me, they have lost as much as any group as a result of western colonization.

I am particularly biased on this issue since my great-grandfather was a Blackfoot and I have grown up being told how the white men stole their land and killed their people.

[Old Mouse]

310. Most American blacks

are mixed with American Indian blood. Especially the five civilized tribes. Both were slaves.

[Zynx]

321. What about the millions of mistreated European immigrants?

Many millions of them worked in shitty industrial jobs where the companies virutally enslaved them and many of them were treated even worse than slaves as their employers had no vested interest in their health where as the slave owner had at least some vested interest in the well being of their slave. Should their families get reparations too from the descendants of those factory owners?

[GumboYaYa]

322. Sorry, but "virtually enslaved" is a far cry from killed and stole

their land, or enslaved and treated as property. Also, it is extremely easy to identify the descendants of the indigenous peoples whose culture we destroyed.

Actually, I know that we will never see the wrong we did to American Indians righted, but it would be nice for people to recognize every now and then that Ameican Indians were the ones most negatively affected by western colonization. Obvipously slavery was heinous too; it's just that there is too much oppression to focus on just one group.

[HamdenRice]

303. One way to answer this question is to look at other countries

I find a lot of objections to the idea of reparations are somewhat naive. Regardless of which way you come down, clarity on the subsidiary issues is helpful. One way of achieving clarity is to look at international precedents.

For example, some have asked whether reparations should be means tested. Look at the practices of other other countries. Are Jewish survivors of the holocaust "means tested" before receiving reparations? No. Are South Africans who lost land means tested under the SA constitution? No. Were East Germans who lost property to communism means tested? No. Were Japanese Americans who were interned during WWII means tested? No.

The question confuses reparations with redistribution programs, which generally are means tested. The issue is not need, but redressing a wrong.

Another question is how far back in time one should look. The biggest flaw in the reparations debate on both sides is assuming this is only about slavery. Legally enforced vicious and economically damaging discrimination continued until the mid 1960s and continued privately thereafter. South Africa looks back to June 1913, even though frontier wars began several centuries earlier. South Africa also provides reparations to the descendants of the wronged person. Deciding on a time frame is a difficult but not insurmountable problem.

Who pays is also not a difficult issue. If you purchase shares in a corporation on Jan 1, 2005 and it is determined to have committed a tort on Jan. 1, 1995, a decade before you became a "member" of the corporation, the corporation and all its current shareholders still have to pay. Similarly, the idea of reparations is not that each person alive today committed the wrong; it is that each person alive today is a member of a society that owes a debt.

[Tomee450]

313. Thank you.

Thank you for explaining the issue so well.

[Old Mouse]

312. Despite good intentions

so many remain ignorant of the reality of the other America.

You argue calculating reparations? There's an old white man living in my family's house!

http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/1898-wrrc/whoweare.htm

[pacifictiger]

314. The devil is in the details

In all fairness, how can you define who was slave and who was responsible?
If you can accomplish that, and identify all decendants after well over a century, then there may be something to talk about. And while you're at it, why not hold the descendants of the slave traders accountable?
It is hardly fair and equitable to expect that all people, especially states that came into existance as well as immigrants that arrived after the time of slavery, should be expected to foot the bill.
There is no guarantee of anything when we are born into this life - and to paraphrase the buddhist philosophy - life's a bitch, get over it and on with it.
Sounds to me like the green party is pandering for votes.

[HamdenRice]

315. Two disagreements

First of all, why is it pandering? Why isn't it just a policy that you disagree with? It seems that whenever a politician or political party agrees with the position of a minority group, especially African Americans or Jews, it is considered pandering. Would you consider their position toward CO2 emissions pandering to the environmental lobby?

Second, what is so difficult about proving who is a descendant of a slave? Native Americans prove descent from native nations for purposes of membership in native nations. South Africa allowed reparations claims for wrongs going back to 1913. The easy solution, which they used, is put the burden of proof on the claimant. The vast majority of African American families who are descendants of slaves can easily prove their status because they can trace birth certificates of ancestors back to the early 20th century south. That would raise a presumption of slave ancestry. Conclusive proof would be Freedmen's Bureau records, plantation records, "free papers," correspondence, photographs of late 19th century rural life, and even corroborated oral family history. South Africa used a semi-judicial proceeding to judge claims.

You may disagree with reparations on other policy grounds, but the practicalities of proof are hardly a significant problem.

[pacifictiger]

319. You leave out an important part of the

equation. Who is resonsible?
To expect descendants of people who were not involved in slavery, to compensate descendants of victims, is hardly a fair situation. And we're talking around 6 generations have come and gone since those days.
Would it not be better for humanity to address the slavery issues going on under our very noses today? It has long been said that people can overcome personal tragedy if they can find a way to rise up and help others.

[Silverhair]

318. How far back do you go in correcting old wrongs, and why just Blacks?

What about the Mexican land grab, where we stole about half of Mexico's land? That was when we poured into Texas, fought and defeated the Mexican Army, and then nine years later invaded Mexico on a pretext and took what is now California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and parts of other states.

Do we give the land back? 1845 isn't that different from 1865.

What about the claims of the American Indians?

Do we move the Cherokees back from Oklahoma to Georgia and give them most of the state of Georgia? Have you ever heard of the "Trail of Tears"? The Cherokees were doing everything we asked of them. They had a written languages, lived in houses, had schools, etc. But they were kicked out of the Southeast and forced to march to Oklahoma. Why is their wrong seen as less than that of the Blacks?

It was Chinese slave labor that built the Western part of the railroads. They were badly mistreated.

Of course, my point is that it is impossible to make amends for all of those old wrongs - slavery included.

[HamdenRice]

325. I agree all deserve compensation, but some have already received it

As unfair as it may seem, Mexicans were represented by a government -- the Mexican government. At the end of the war, the US paid a settlement claim to Mexico of $15 million and assumed all claims of US citizens against Mexico. Therefore, Mexicans did receive compensation through the intermediary of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

As for Native Americans, in fact there has been a lengthy, convoluted process of settlement of claims for broken treaties going back over 200 years.

So your examples actually strengthen the argument for reparations. The claim is not "just for blacks" -- the question really is, why are only African Americans excluded from the process of reparations? Could racism have something to do with how these issues are perceived?

[Zynx]

320. My ancestors came here after the Civil War for the most part.

No one in my family ever took advantage of black slave labor. I don't see why my tax dollars should be used for reparations.

[HamdenRice]

324. If you were born in Germany after WWII

Your tax dollars are still used to pay reparations for the holocaust. Again, the anology is to a corporation. You purchase shares on Jan 1, 2005. The corporation is determined to have committed a tort -- let's say distributed a dangerous product on Jan 1, 2000. The corporation pays and your share price or dividends are reduced.

You were born into a country that had committed a wrong, but had not paid for it. You benefited from the public wealth and infrastructure. The value of that public wealth and infrastructure is reduced by the judgment against the government.

BTW, do you complain when your tax dollars were diverted to pay reparations to the Japanese Americans? When your tax dollars are diverted to settle Native American land claims? If you have a mutual fund, have you complained that some share prices are reduced by recent judgments against international banks for aiding the holocaust?

[Zynx]

326. As a matter of principal, I don't agree with reparations for the most part

Holocaust reparations are one thing because there are many living Germans from that period and their immediate descendants, but with slavery you are talking about many generations. There has to be a date limit at some point or we are going to be saying that the Italian government has to pay up for the Romans enslaving Gauls, Goths, and Jews, among other groups. It's about that silly to talk about slavery reparations.

One thing you haven't taken into account that I think you should, this country paid the price for slavery in the Civil War. A very steep price, particularly in the South. Sure, there were many many problems afterwards, but I look at the Civil War as this nation's price for having slavery. We paid for our sins dearly.