Reparations for Slavery?

[durutti]

Why or why not?

[jpgray]

1. Sure, but in terms of equality in school, the workplace, and in court

Some money is fine, I suppose, but until the above changes, the money will be all too temporary.

[anti_shrub]

2. Not

It's not fair to make people pay for their great-great-great grandfather's sins, plus how would you determine who pays and who doesn't?

Not only that, but it would give the Stormfront crowd all the justification they need for their hate tactics.

[DrWeird]

5. Paying reperations would justify...

white supremacists beating up black people?

Wtf?

[LeahMira]

29. Absolutely, yes!

It's not fair to make people pay for their great-great-great grandfather's sins, plus how would you determine who pays and who doesn't?

So, what year did we sign the Declaration of Independence? When did we add the Bill of Rights to our Constitution?

If your response is a date, then you are using "we" in a collective responsibility sort of sense. No one living today signed the Declaration of Independence and no one living today added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Yet "we" assume some credit for those documents because many of our ancestors were responsible for those achievements and "we" affirm them by ensuring their continuation into the present.

If "we" can take credit for our founding documents, then "we" must also accept responsibility for the less than heroic parts of "our" history. In that sense "we" permitted slavery in this country, and "we" permitted discrimination and oppression to continue even after slavery was abolished. "We" are affirming those sorry actions and omissions every day that "we" profit from the oppression, even if "we" are not personally oppressing.

This country has a history of rarely apologizing for much of anything, at least not formally. Sure, we bemoan some of our past mistakes, and President Clinton did apologize to a group of black men who were unaware and involuntary syphillis experimentation subjects. So were they or their families ever provided restitution of any sort for their suffering and losses? Not that I know about, but I could be mistaken on that.

But "we" are all collectively responsible, just as "we" are all collectively responsible for the founding documents... and for slavery.

In the case of slavery, or any injustice, "we" are required to apologize formally and publicly, to make whatever amends are possible to those who were treated unjustly, and to do what is necessary to make sure that those same injustices never take place again.

Looking around in the U.S., I'd say that "we" still have a long way to go.


Not only that, but it would give the Stormfront crowd all the justification they need for their hate tactics.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. The absolute last thing I care about when making any moral sort of decision is what the Stormfront crowd might think. Puh-leeze.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

60. LeahMira, you are right on!

I agree with your post completely, thanks for saying that in a clear and concise way. I think you've cut through a lot of excuses that people use to not take responsibility for our society, not just the past but the present too. I hope you won't mind me using your arguments! That's one of the best explanations I've read, and I've never had an easy time explaining it before. :)

[Bucky]

63. Absolutely no.

Slavey was as troubling and as wrong and as wicked a thing that this country has ever done. It was more than just immoral on its own terms. It was a direct contradiction of our most cherished ideals. When George Washington started to come around to opposing British rule and favoring separation, one of his most accurate arguments involved describing the relationship between taxing Britain and unrepresented America as that of slavery. Yet he continued to operate over a slave system during that time and for the rest of his life.

Nonetheless, as wrong as slavery was, there really is no good reason why the American government of today should offer reparations to the descendents of slaves (Bob Barr comes to mind, but then I have a wicked mind). There just isn't a legal case for it.

Proponents of slavery reparations point out the precedent set by awarding reparations to the Nissei interred during WW2. But they were being reparated for real estate lost in their own lifetimes, not back pay for unlawfully withheld wages that rightfully belonged to ancestors, which the argument for slavery reparations comes down to.

The real cost of slavery to the country, besides the Civil War, was the long institutionalized oppression of African Americans in the century following the end of the war. No living American today has ever suffered from slavery. The source of racial inequality in this country is the legacy of the century following the end of slavery. And yet no one is calling for reparations for Jim Crowism or segregation.

Why not? Because, like in George Washington's time, slavery is a far more effective metaphor than the legal realities of the day. African Americans need redress for the modern grievances of today. Slavery reparations is a roundabout and legally invalid way of addressing problems that that, whatever their historic precedents, are not caused by slavery.

[Isome]

91. Alot of words there...

But your conclusion makes it all for naught.

...addressing problems that that, whatever their historic precedents, are not caused by slavery.

There's no other way to say this - it's bullshit!

[Bucky]

95. Let me make it shorter then

My point is that the harms that reparations are supposed to redress are not caused by slavery. There are no living ex-slaves. The harms were caused by segregation and racial discrimination.

Slavery reparations are bogus because no living person has been harmed by slavey in America, while a whole lot of people are being harmed up to this today by racial discrimination. But "racial discrimination" isn't as strong a word, so many opinion shapers go for the easy rhetoric.

Reparations are the wrong cure for the wrong ill. The whole notion lacks even the semblance of justice.

[Isome]

96. Shorter or not...

You merely repeated the EXACT point that makes it BULLSHIT!

Added:

The wage gap, healthcare gap, accumulated wealth gap, etc. are the residual effects of the supremacist attitudes that sanctioned and carried out the enslavement of African people.

Most blacks suffered and continue to suffer the economic consequences of slavery and its aftermath. As of 1998, median white family income in the U.S. was $49,023; median black family income was $29,404, just 60% of white income. (2001 New York Times Almanac, p. 319) Further, the costs of living within the United States far exceed those of African nations. The present poverty level for an American family of four is $17,029. Twenty-three and three-fifths percent (23.6%) of all black families live below the poverty level.

When one examines net financial worth, which reflects, in part, the wealth handed down within families from generation to generation, the figures appear much starker. Recently, sociologists Melvin L. Oliver and Thomas M. Shapiro found that just a little over a decade ago, the net financial worth of white American families with zero or negative net financial worth stood at around 25%; that of Hispanic households at 54%; and that of black American households at almost 61%. (Oliver & Shapiro, p. 87) The inability to accrue net financial worth is also directly related to hiring practices in which black Americans are "last hired" when the economy experiences an upturn, and "first fired" when it falls on hard times.

And as historian John Hope Franklin remarked on the legacy of slavery for black education: "laws enacted by states forbade the teaching of blacks any means of acquiring knowledge-including the alphabet-which is the legacy of disadvantage of educational privatization and discrimination experienced by African Americans in 2001."

If necessary, I can post the AMA (American Medical Association) report citing the "unexplained" healthcare gap (read: unequal treatment) that exists EVEN when adjusting for economics and insurance coverage. Blacks are less likely to receive aggressive lifesaving treatments, less likely to be informed of successful alternative treatments, less likely to receive adequate pain medication, etc.

Then, if that's not enough, we can get into the PREDATORY LENDING that happens to people of African descent regularly, DESPITE equal credit histories, income, etc. Also, the higher the income the MORE LIKELY one is to encounter discriminatory banking practices.

The icing on the cake is the LAND STOLEN (from the 1800's to modern day) from African descended people and reported by the Associated Press.

The supremacist leanings accepted and encouraged during the Middle Passage live on today.

[ma4t]

103. Another cause of the net worth disparity between white and blacks

Is the social security program. For decades whites and blacks have been paying taxes into the program; however, the retirement age (when one begins receiving benefits) has been set so close to the life expectancy of black workers that on average, a black worker receives no meaningful benefit for the the taxes paid in. In effect the program has acted to transfer wealth from black workers to whites.

I'm not saying that this was the rationale for setting up the program so don't go off flaming me on this. I am saying that this has been an unanticipated effect. All it takes to determine this is a set of mortality tables and a calculator.

[linazelle]

171. I can't believe you think no one today suffers from the effects of slavery

Although the formal institution of slavery was dismantled over a hundred years ago, it's only been forty years since civil rights legislation did what the Emancipation Proclamation was supposed to have done a century earlier.

When we have blacks as a marginalized underclass due to their systematic disenfranchisement stemming from slavery, there is no way you can tell me no one today suffering from slavery. Blacks fill up our prisons, are the favored proverbial "boogey men" of the media and still suffer from prejudices that are fading but are not totally absent simply due to race.

I don't know how America can repay blacks for what it has done to our families and our men, but there is no way you can tell me American policies are responsible for the predicaments that have plagued the black family in America. Whites look down on blacks for their broken families when it was whites, under the systems of slavery who severed the ties in the black family. The communities we see today, the men in jails, the illegitimate children, the lack of education--are all direct remnants of slavery.

[Yupster]

198. 40 years ago Black families

were much more intact than they are today. If this was the effect of slavery,you would assume the problem would slowly go down. How can the numbers be low for 80 years after slavery ended, and then spike up and be the effect of what happened 130 years ago. Some kind of three generational delayed reaction stress? Nope - don't buy that.

[Isome]

203. I said it would only confuse you...

You have a difficult time with indentured servants versus enslaved Africans. There's no way to explain the vesitages of slavery to you. Touting peripheral issues that aren't germane to reparations most likely sums up your feelings about Black Americans as a whole.

[Yupster]

213. Indentured servants?

I haven't mentioned indentured servants in any of my posts. Which post are you referring to? or do you just hurl your insults in order and it was just that my turn came up?

[Isome]

232. Nope, it was just the post ABOVE yours. But you'd still be confused...

and that confusion would lead inevitably to your rejection of any information that doesn't jibe with your set ideas and conclusions. That's not an insult. It's an obvservation based on your side conversation about whether slavery would have ended on it's own, your preoccupation with the marital status of Americans of African descent, and referring to children born to a single parents as 'illegitimate'.

But there are a couple sources for your edification:

The Black Community; Diversity and Unity James E. Blackwell ...two great chapters on the black family in which the function and structure of the AfricanAmerican family is discussed.

Science, Myth, Reality; The Black Family in One Half Century of Research Eleanor, Engram.
... concentrates on the primary aspects of the Black family in an attempt to separate fact from myth.

The "marriage" rate you cite is misleading in that many couples cohabitated for extended periods of time, and due to the stigmas of the era referred to themselves as married, though they were not legally. The effect of society's acceptance of divorce was that it lessened the need for inhabitants of Black communities to make that false claim. Some Neeley Fuller would help, but I doubt you're interested. I suspect you'd merely like information to support your assertions.

Nonetheless, it's not germane to the rightness or wrongness of reparations. The wage gap can't be explained away by it. The healthcare gap can't be explained away by it. Predatory lending by the banking industry can't be explained away by it. The stolen land can't be explained away by it. All of the aforementioned have yet to be addressed, though they've been posted (some with links) throughout this thread.

[Terran]

66. Well said! (n/t)

[election_2004]

79. LeahMira....

I hope by "we," you are at least referring to all Americans, and not just whites.

[Red State Rebel]

120. No...

Why pay someone for something that didn't happen to them by someone who wasn't me?

[Nederland]

128. Not really

So, what year did we sign the Declaration of Independence? When did we add the Bill of Rights to our Constitution?

If your response is a date, then you are using "we" in a collective responsibility sort of sense. No one living today signed the Declaration of Independence and no one living today added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Yet "we" assume some credit for those documents.

You can't be serious. No one alive today can claim responsibility for writing or signing the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution. When people say "what year did we sign the Declaration of Independence" they are simply asserting the fact that they are an American, not that can some how claim credit for the writing of those documents.

[SemperEadem]

141. he already made that point in his post

" No one alive today can claim responsibility for writing or signing the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution. "

Duh--what he said was that "we" benefit from the credit it provided when it was signed all those centuries ago. He made that distinction quite clear.

[Isome]

150. Doh!

And... the entire country benefited from the free labor of enslaved Africans.

[Nederland]

170. Wrong

The entire country was made poorer by slavery. Even setting aside the huge moral and social costs that slavery imposed upon this country, even a purely economic analysis reveals that slavery has a tremendous cost. Free people always work harder than slaves. As a result, if the South did not have slavery it would have created far more wealth than it did. A big reason that the North was always wealthier than the South was because the North was made up of free people that, unlike the slaves in the South, had incentive to work hard.

[Isome]

182. Wrong...

"New England slave traders, merchants, bankers, and insurance companies all profited from the slave trade, which required a wide variety of commodities ranging from sails, chandlery, foodstuffs, and guns, to cloth goods and other items for trading purposes. Both prior to and after the American Revolution, slaveholding was a principal path for white upward mobility in the South. ...As Eric Williams and C.L.R. James have demonstrated, the free labor provided by slavery was central to the growth of industry in western Europe and the United States... the sharing of the proceeds of slave exploitation spilled across class lines within white communities as well."

Do you think only Southerners participated in the slavetrade? Do you think owning slaves was the only way to profit? That's shallow thinking.

[La_Serpiente]

3. I'm still thinking

haven't really formulated an opinion on it.

But it makes you wonder, why didn't blacks get their acre and a mule???

[Yupster]

52. The repatations Lincoln offered

was to the owners, not to the slaves. At the Hampton Roads conference in February 1865, Lincoln met with Confederate Vice President Alexander Stevens.

Lincoln offered fair value payment to the owners for the freedom of the slaves if the Confederate government would surrender by April 1. The proposal was dead in the water as the Confederate government would accept nothing short of full independence. They should have taken him up on his offer. Lee surrendered April 9.

I don't know where the 40 Acres and a mule reference came from. I'd have to do a search? Perhaps a federal general? I'll check.

[Yupster]

72. 40 Acres and a mule

Here's what I found about the origins of "40 acres and a mule"

Here's the link and a short excerpt
http://www.thenorthstarnetwork.com/news/heritage/181575-1.html


"The controversy about reparations is rooted in General William Tecumseh Sherman’s January 16, 1865, Special Field Order No. 15, issued in Atlanta. According to the Order, when “three respectable egroes” decide to settle on a plot of land, they shall be awarded “a plot of not more than (40) forty acres of tillable ground.” No mule is mentioned in the field order, but the mule or a horse would have been necessary to till the land, unless human power was used to pull the plow through the soil.

The devise of land was a reparation, a payment made for wrongs done to loyal refugees and freedmen, and overseen by the short-term congressionally authorized Freedman’s Bureau. According to the Sherman's order, tracts in South Carolina Sea Islands, and near St. John’s River in Florida, were specifically reserved for Black occupation. By June 1865, 40,000 freedmen had claimed 400,000 acres of land. Nevertheless, by September of the same year, claims by former owners of the land began to erode freedmen’s rights of access, and the larger promise made by Sherman and Congress.

By 1869, President Andrew Jackson fully rescinded the bill, and a number of Black landowners were ejected from their tracts, thus ending the reparative homesteading program. In the years between 1865-69, reparation plans abounded. Many proposed to dispossess former slave owners of large tracts of land and redistribute them to former slaves. But, politicians of the day remained steadfastly committed to denying reparations to freedmen."

Here's an interesting link. It looks like it's a Yale University professor's curriculum page.

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1994/4/94.04.01.x.html

[lcordero]

4. of course

the profits of slavery are still ill-gotten no matter what anybody says and the descendants of criminals should not be allowed to keep the ill-gotten wealth.

[Garage Queen]

10. Yeah, but how do you determine exactly who has to pay whom?

I ain't got a pot to piss in, but what if it turns out that my great great grandaddy's uncle owned slaves...do I have to pay? and if so, whom? And do the black decendents of the African slave traders also have to pay? And what of those who are now of mixed race ... do they get 1/8 as much as "full-blooded" blacks? 1/2 as much? And what it if turns out that I'm 1/32 black - do I *receive* money? and who's going to figure out all the formulas for this mess?

The best way to pay "reparations" would be to poor money into poor school districts, making sure that EVERY American has a decent education, and can read and write when they leave school. Also, anti-discriminatory legislation, college funds for the underpriviledged (of ALL races) etc etc etc. I truly feel that education is the greatest opportunity EVERYone has to better themselves.

[jackcgt]

20. Pouring money into poor school districts will solve absolutely

nothing. It will simply mean the school has nicer things to teach with. It will not, however, instill in the students the value of education nor will it turn them into model students. It all goes back to their parents. If the parents value education, the student will as well.

[Mikimouse]

30. Not really, you would find that most parents do recognize the value

of education, even in the poorest of circumstances. Money accomplishes nothing in the schools in poorer areas because while the schools can afford to upgrade libraries, computer access, etc., they can only change approximatley one third of a student's day. Most students in these schools work after school (or before and after school) to help maintain the family. Unless that changes, the students in poorer areas are doomed to failure. Perhaps the reparations money could be used as a trust, of sorts, to help level the playing field, so to speak. My family wasn't even in this country until the 20th century, but I would be very happy to see some social justice for the victims of slavery, and would consider it money well spent. Consider this while you ponder the question, the children and grandchildren are currently paying other groups for many of the same types of historical atrocities, and we have not raised a ruckus about that, so why are we so divided on this issue?

[Blue_Chill]

82. I'd have to see a plan but I'm leaning towards no. n/t

...

[Red State Rebel]

122. You are right..

The cost per student has risen outrageously and there is still little or no improvement.

[dpibel]

129. Help me out here

I know that what you've said is common knowledge.

I just spent almost an hour googling around, and couldn't find any source that showed me historical trends in education spending.

Since you know that "cost per student has risen outrageously," would you mind telling me how you know that? Some source that would show me cost per student over the last 20 years would be interesting, but anything at all would be good.

Even were this received-knowledge allegation true, it wouldn't make much difference if it were merely a statement of averages. You'd also need to show that spending per student in the low-achieving areas has increased outrageously. Since a big chunk of school funding is property-tax based, it's a little hard to believe that, in economically depressed areas, the spending has increased outrageously.

In other words, you've repeated the talking point. Now tell me how you know what you know.

[lcordero]

25. Have you benefitted off of slavery? No

Do you pay anything? No
This is strictly aimed at the top 1-5% of parasites in this world. The other 95-99% of the world are the hosts(or serfs) that are getting bled dry.

[Zuni]

42. good points

Although it is not really possible, (my relatives were not in the US in the 1860s yet) even if i found out my great great grandfather owned slaves, it wouldn't make me guilty of squat.

[Isome]

43. What will you have to pay?

Hmmm, that's a question that seems to be a defensive reaction. But, my question is what did you pay when the U.S. gov't. paid reparation to Japanese-Americans?

I didn't call for their internment, nor did my parents or their parents before them. I didn't benefit from it either. But when it came time to pay reparations, the money was taken from my taxes (sans any notification on IRS forms, pay stubs, etc.) just as it always is when the government owes money.

[Abaques]

136. There is a fundamental flaw in that argument...

The *government* interred the Japanese Americans un-lawfully and therefore must be responsible for restitution. As the government is made up of all of us, then it was all of our responsibilities to pay up.


The vast majority of slaves were owned by individuals, not the government. This leads you back to the old problem, who pays and who recieves?

I think it would be hardly fair to tax the daughter of an immigrant who arrived in 1910 for the actions of the people here long before their family reached these shores.


I know that the argument that the government was responsible by the fact that it allowed slaves can be brought up, but that is taking away the responsibility from the people who actually did own slaves.

If you want to get more realistic with that argument, you could advocate that any states that allowed the owning of slaves should be made to pay, but the states that did not allow slaves would not be responisble. This creates another issue however: the southern slave owning states are simply not as wealthy as the rest of the nation and putting the charge of slave reparations on them would probably cause more harm to black people (due to massive program cuts, don't kid yourselves...) then good.

[Isome]

154. The flaw lies in your argument.

It wasn't unlawful, it was the LAW. The government made it so. After it was over they had to pay for it.

The GOVERNMENT sanctioned slavery and it SANCTIONED Jim Crow. They made slavery possible, ergo, they're responsible.

Laws of manumission were effective because even NON-slave owners in the north assisted in maintaining the insitution of slavery. So no one can claim innocence.

Interesting though, did you feel PUNISHED because reparations (via taxes) were paid to the Japanese? NO one felt punished then, 'eh?! *lol*

[Abaques]

175. While I see where you are coming from, I still disagree.

First off, a strong argument can be made that the populations of the northern states paid off any debt in full during the civil war. They paid off that debt in both blood and treasure (that war sure as hell wasn't cheap).


Secondly, you failed to address the point of how anyone who traces their or their family's entrance into America to any time after the Civil War can be held accountable at all. After all, neither they or their ancestors can really be blamed for something that took place before they got here, can they?






BTW - These aren't the only arugments I have with reparations, but I feel that they need to be explored just the same.

[Isome]

181. As I continue to disagree with you.

The entire North wasn't comprised of selfless believers in the equality of the enslaved Africans & their descendants.

.::.Robert Chrisman and Ernest Allen, Jr..::.

Most white union troops were drafted into the union army in a war which the federal government initially defined as a "war to preserve the union." In large part because they feared that freed slaves would flee the South and "take their jobs" while they themselves were engaged in warfare with Confederate troops, recently drafted white conscripts in New York City and elsewhere rioted during the summer of 1863, taking a heavy toll on black civilian life and property. Too many instances can be cited where white northern troops plundered the personal property of slaves, appropriating their bedding, chickens, pigs, and foodstuffs as they swept through the South. On the other hand, it is certainly true that there also existed principled white commanders and troops who were committed abolitionists.

Futher, the debt doesn't belong to the North, it belongs to the federal government, that encompasses the North.

Who cares when you reached these shores? You, personally, aren't responsible. The federal government is. Why would you eschew responsibility when it isn't placed on you? Did you balk at the idea of paying reparations to the Japanese (and their surviving family members) who were interned after Pearl Harbor? I felt no responsibility, nor did I feel punished that my tax dollars were taken to pay the debt. Why do you?

I've asked that question repeatedly and no one seems to have an answer.

[Yupster]

53. And what about decsendents of

black slave owners? Would they pay themselves, or would I, a person whose ancestors were in Germany oppressing the Poles and having nothing to do with slavery, have to pay to a guy whose ancestors owned slaves.

Nope, what's past is past. Leave it alone and aim for equality today.

[Isome]

90. The past is always elongated for issues that concern others.

All the while, the past continues to be PROLOGUE and folks just travel in a ridiculous circle, repeating the same behaviors, adopting the same attitudes, and wondering why they get the SAME results.

[TexasMexican]

6. No reparation..

because if they get them, then I want reparations from Spain from killing off the Aztecs then I also want reparations from Texas for seperating from Mexico, then I also want reparations from the US taking Texas.

It gets really pretty assinine.

[Isome]

83. Then... you'll have to go to SPAIN!!!!!!!

Ask the SPANISH government for reparations. This is AMERICA... not SPAIN! This is the U.S.... not ITALY. This is the United States... not EGYPT!

[spychoactive]

7. not, because...

i don't think there is any fair way to do it, and as i type this i realize just how sticky even trying to flesh out an opinion on this issue is...

i mean seriously how can i say "no way" without being labeled as a "you know what"...

money will not heal those wounds, only serve to magnify the divisive issues that it entails...i mean how much money will buy the forgiveness of someone that is almost 150 years (quick math) removed from the situation? wher would the money come from? who would it come from? would only white people pay? if it came from taxpayer money then african-americans would essentially be paying reparations to themselves on some level...yuck this thread is tricky...i am new here, this seems like my golden opportunity for my first flaming...

i have to find a way to say what's on my mind...

ok how about just a simple "no"...

*whew*

it's a shame what happened, but it's time to move on...

*ducking*

one love
spike

[La_Serpiente]

8. The debate is really interesting

should the US government have to pay reparations? I mean, they are the ones that freed the slaves. Yet freeing the slaves was just a side effect of the civil war.

Can someone answer this question for me? Was the Civil War started to free the slaves? I read somewhere that said it was not.

Should blacks be suing the federal government or the institutions (banks, companies, railroad companies, etc) that promoted slavery?

And the assets of black America has always 40 percent less than that of White America. That still rings true till today.

[TexasMexican]

22. The US Civil War was like all wars, about economics and power

The Union went to war with the CSA not to free slaves, but to bring those states back into the union by force.

I think some famous Lincoln quote goes something along the lines of that if he could make the Union whole again without having to deal with the slave issue he would have.

The confederate states broke away because obviously the majority of thier economy was made possible with slavery, that and they knew that the new non-slave states that were joining the union would have left them in the minority politically.

[Zuni]

38. You didn't read the whole Lincoln quote, did you?

That quote you are using also ends with lincoln saying that he will do everything in his power to see that slavery dies out.

[TexasMexican]

45. no...

I barely remembered it.

[Virginian]

206. According to my history professor...

Slavery was dying out because it had ceased to be profitable. It would have ended on its own if the war hadn't come along.

The war didn't end slavery, it took an act of congress. Check out the 14th Ammendment to the Constitution.

Nothing was mentioned about slavery in the conditions of surrender at Appomatox. So, if the war was about slavery, how come it wasn't a condition of surrender?

Maryland was a slave state in the union. It was exempted from the Emancipation Proclamation. What were the union soldiers from Maryland fighting for?

[Yupster]

54. No - Lincoln made it a major point

During his election campaign and early in the war that the south had nothing to fear from him. He said he would not touch slavery in the land where it currently existed. He was against its spread into the territories.

Even the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery. It covered ONLY slaves in areas currently in rebellion. In other words, slaves in Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, Maryland would remain slaves as would slaves in New Orleans and other parts of the south currently occupied by the federal army. The only slaves freed by the EP were the slaves Lincoln had no control over, those being the ones in Confederate territory.

[recidivist]

123. Yes, but in fairness to Lincoln ...

... his underlying assumption was that slavery was a dying institution that would, once contained, wither on the vine. That was, in fact, a correct assessment. Most sensible people in both sections had the same view. Lincoln also labored under the established constitutional doctrine of his day, which accepted slavery as a fact of life in the states where it was already established. That was one of the very difficult foundational compromises made at the Constitutional Convention, and Lincoln had no power under the Constitution to alter that arrangement by executive fiat.

Historians debate how soon slavery would have disappeared without the war. I personally think sooner rather than later, probably beginning with some form of phased and/or compensated emancipation beginning as early as the 1870's.

That is perhaps a minority position among the historians, but I defend it on classic political grounds. Ideas are powerful, and once they gain critical mass, long-entrenched practices can change with startling rapidity. Britain had already emancipated all the slaves in her Empire decades before, and even Russia emancipated the serfs in 1861. The idea that America was lagging the entire civilized world would, I think, have become insupportable. Once the slave states lost their blocking position in the Senate, change would have been rapid. This, of course, was also the opinion of the South Carolina pro-slavery zealots, who saw the peculiar institution as being on a quick course to extinction if the South stayed in the Union. That is why they seceded to begin with.

[Yupster]

137. I agree with you reci

I also believe slavery would have been gone sooner rather than later. Brazil ended slavery in the 1880's. I don't think we would have been after Brazil.

Even if te Confederacy had won its independence, the seond Confederate president, RE Lee would have began some system of organized manumission of the slaves.

[pasadenaboy]

9. I'm not sure where you start or stop.

I just don't think its realistic or fruitful to spend too much time on it. I'd rather work to fix the inequalities and injustices we see committed today (and trust me,there are plenty)

[hlthe2b]

15. That's really where I come down , Pasadenaboy...

eom

[hlthe2b]

11. All our money has gone to Bushie's rich cronies....

and to the military industrial complex for the next decades....:mad:

So, I'm not sue how we could do so, even if there was agreement on the issue...


In reality, I think this issue is so divisive, that we might well have to fight another civil war if we were to move ahead with large scale reparations. That does not negate that there is a strong arugument to be made for it. That argument, though is quite different than for others where reparations were made, since decisions would have to be made, not on the persons directly harmed, but on their descendants. There is also a strong argument that can be made against it...I'd say we'd need our own vesion of Soloman to resolve the issue.

[QC]

12. Let's own up to the role of oppressed labor in building America,

which would mean dealing not only with slavery, but with some other uncomfortable realities, such as convict labor and indentured servitude in the Colonial Era (between 1/2 and 2/3 of Europeans who came here during that time came in some form of bondage), sharecropping and tenant farming, the ugliness of 19th and early 20th century capitalism, the continuing exploitation of workers in agriculture, etc.

In other words, let's acknowledge that exploitation is part of "the system" and not just an abberation that ended in 1864. Oppression of laborers has played a major role in building the country's wealth, wealth that is still being hoarded at the top.

[brainshrub]

13. Not

But I think a discussion about the issue is healthy.

I think people who think reparations are a good idea should get together and make a specific proposal as to what they want, who would qualify and who would pay.

Then we can continue the conversation. As of now, the term "reparations for slavery" is to vague.

[Isome]

89. THEY HAVE made a proposal...

John Conyers has REPEATEDLY requested funding for a study and has been repeatedly turned down.

The ONLY reason people bring it up now is because it's election time and it's surefire way to scare white people.

[brainshrub]

114. Good point

I hadn't thought about the real reasons to bring up reparations. Come to think obout it, I only year this kind of talk every four years or so.

Like I said, I think a conversation about reparations is healthy for the nation. While I am opposed to the idea, I would not object to a congressionally-funded study on the issue.

Heck, even if the reparations were, say, $50,000 to every black man, woman & child in America, it would be money better spent than what we are wasting in Iraq.

[Isome]

149. You wouldn't be opposed to it?

That's awfully big of you. (and I'm being serious) But money to individuals is not what is being proposed.

[brainshrub]

187. Not at all,

as long as Congress agreed to it. (I wouldn't want reparations to be paid at gunpoint.)

And I know that direct money is not part of the plan, I was just useing that as an example.

Right now my knee-jerk reaction is to be against reparations. But if there was a solid plan put forth by some black-congress, I would certainly take it into consideration.

[Isome]

200. I take you approved of the plan to pay the Japanese & the Aluets?

And, the plan to pay the Natives in Oregon & Oklahoma (among other states)? Those plans were acceptable I take it. No objections from you there right?

[last1standing]

14. Tricky subject and one that's bound to get heated.

I used to be for reparations, but since I don't think it will ever happen, I'd just like to see affirmative action continue and be expanded to help more of the downtrodden in this society.

I know wishes are like assholes, but if african americans had received their promised 40 acres and a mule, there would most likely be much less racism and resentment today. In other words, I wish they had happened to begin with, but now now. It wouldn't work.

[spychoactive]

16. it speaks volumes

that this discussion can even happen without it getting ugly...my proverbial hat is off to the DU...i am glad i found you here...

but i still say no...as i read somwhere up there:

where would it end?

i can hear someone complaining: "$400??? are you effin kidding me???"

just what is the approximate african-american population in the USA anyway???

would it apply to everyone alive now, or would a check be cut at birth???

[Mattforclark]

17. No, because

any money that could be used for that purpose would be much better spent in helping disadvantaged schools and various other things. This would go a lot further to mitigating the negative lingering affects of slavery than handing out money.

[dani]

18. A somewhat tangential question:

What about multiracial people? I mean a person who has one African-American parent and one caucasian parent. I've wondered how that would be handled by reparations. Or what about a black person who came to American after slavery was outlawed: they and their ancestors didn't suffer directly from slavery, but they do experience racism same as all black Americans, and that injustice is partly what reparations seeks to address.

[spychoactive]

19. that is one perfect example why it will never work

that is hardly tangential my friend...

am i a bad person for having to force myself to type "african-american" instead of "black"???

i am the least predjudiced person you will ever meet...

i am cringing at how it may have looked had i done that...the fact that people feel the need to walk on egg shells on this subject speaks to how far we have to go...

if it were me i would find any amount of the gov't money an insult...

[Isome]

98. The question is irrelevant. n/t

What if you are mulatto (ugly throwback terminology)? If you don't consider yourself Black or African American, you don't want reparations anyway.

Being cautious in what you say to or around people who may not share your ethinicity is a GOOD thing. That's life in the TOSSED SALAD that is America.

[pnb]

142. How is it irrelevant though?

Who's to say that a person who is mixed race wouldn't want a piece of the action?

Its also not a matter just of one person. In a situation like mine it would be interesting also. I am a white man married to a black woman. If she were given reparations, it would certainly benefit this here white man as well. Does that make it less fair? Also, in a sense, my wife would not be considered by many to have as many disadvantages due to race because of some "benefits" of being married to a white person. What happens in a situation like this?

And I also fail to see how all the caution is a good thing.

[Isome]

157. a piece of the action...

That's the source of fear right there. Non-blacks are obsessed with the fear the Black people are getting rich at their expense. They're convinced we're getting something that rightfully belongs to them. There's no "action" to be gained with the proposed reparations.

Multi-racial makeup isn't an issue because individual payments aren't an option.

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. A qualified yes

I'd like to see whatever $$ is agreed upon paid into the UNCF.

But it won't be a cure-all for the discrimination African Americans still face.

(I feel we owe something to the Native tribes as well.)

[Blue Gardener]

23. Native Americans first?

Wouldn't we have to start with them since we stole their country? At the very least give them back some of their ancestral lands?

[SmileyBoy]

28. Yes, I agree.

If there's a group in this country who DESPERATELY needs the money more than anyone else, it's the Native Americans.

No offense to African-American folks here, but in general, the black community in this country lives like kings compared to the poor souls living on reservations.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

32. Those who live on reservations are truly impoverished beyond measure,

but as a black man, I wouldn't say I'm living like a king. You make a good point though, everyone complains about how they've beeen screwed. No one's been screwed like the Native Americans.

[SmileyBoy]

40. Yeah, I'm not saying black people are more well off than others...

...just look at East St. Louis, Gary, Camden, etc. There's poverty problems across many demographic and racial groups in the US.

But as someone living in the Dakotas, I can attest to witnessing the worst living conditions in this country that exist on reservations.

[0007]

100. True the Native Americans have screwed badly......

The Chinese coolie that were enslaved from China to work and build our railroads and mines were shipped back to China with nothing but broken bodies. The Blacks, the Indians, the Chinese have all been screwed by this country in the name of GOD!!

[Yupster]

55. Kennewick Man first

Looks like he was here before the Native Americans.

[JackSwift]

24. None of my ancestors

owned slaves, and some were, while white, of such peasant status that they were slaves for all intents and purposes. So part of my tax dollars should go to people because they were slaves due to race? No. That is not a sufficient remedy. Remember, the current generation have not been slaves, and no one has for 130 plus years. There is, however, racism, with actual economic consequences. An appropriate remedy for the recent past and current officially condoned racism would be affirmative action, or some such program.

[DrWeird]

27. "slaves for all intents and purposes"

Comparison of subsistence farmers, or what have you, to antebellum slavery is ridiculous and quite ignorant of the facts.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

105. no, it's not

White indentured servants and the prison labor from Europe were hardly better off than African slaves. The major difference being the status of children - African slave's children were enslaved as well, in chattel slavery, while Europeans children were not. Of course, children were often sold into indentured servitude. The status of servants vs. slaves were not so different early on, they were simliar enough that the slaves and servants often rebelled together, often "went native" in villages made up of whites, blacks, and natives.

I believe the first racist laws in America were in response to a rebellion in which black slaves, white servants, and native kidnappees fought side by side. Breaking up that coalition by introducing white priviledge obviously worked quite well.

[Isome]

47. Reparations isn't about JackSwift's ancestors...

owning slaves. It's about a government sanctioned institution that benefited the entire country. It's about laws of manumission that could NOT have been effective had it not been for "good people" who did NOTHING.

A government's responsibility remains as long as the government survives.

If people would stop thinking of it as punishment for something they DIDN'T do, and just think of the Japanese-American (some Japanese, too) reparations.

[jeffrey_X]

50. It is also about...

creating the racist conditions of this country that people are currently subjected to and have been for the past 100 or so years.

It is also about creating the inequities in our society, mentally and physically. Without slavery, would there be inner city ghettos? We are living in a society today that is still shaped by the ramifications of slavery.

[DrWeird]

26. How about reperations for segregation?

There are plenty of people still alive that were harmed due to america's own form of apartheid.

Of course this issue will, like slavery, be continually and conveniently delayed until all who suffered from segregation will be dead, at which point people will say "sure, segregation was bad, but those people are dead and we should just move on."

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

31. I could go on all night about this,

but here's some quick points.

The concept of reparations for slavery is a good idea, but:

1. Those individuals responsible for slavery are long dead, as well as the direct victims of slavery.

Our ancestors suffered. Why should we get the money?

2. Who's going to pay for it? What about people who just got here? What about those who had nothing to do with slavery? It doesn't seem fair to make them pay for something that had no hand in.

3. Some people have talked about money going to foundation for education on slavery, in order to heal the wounds of the past. That sounds great, but if we're just talking about handing out checks to people, I don't see how it's going to work.

[9215]

46. Reparations already paid

This topic comes up every few months. I've been answering it the same way for 20 years.

The Civil War dead atoned for slavery; it is over.

[Isome]

48. It did?

No, it didn't. Many who fought didn't care about the issue of freeing enslaved Africans. They cared about keeping the Union together, or they cared about the SPREAD of slavery, which took away PAYING JOBS from free WHITE men.

[9215]

106. Yaaaaaawn

Dude, 650,000 men, most of them white, died over the issue of freeing blacks. You can't argue with these facts. The reparations were paid in blood. It is over.

[Isome]

148. They did?

Nahhh, they didn't. Most of them died fighting against the expansion of slavery because it would take away JOBS from them. It was mostly an economics issue.

If it was all about their altruistic feelings, the end of the war wouldn't have led to Jim Crow in the South and de facto Jim Crow in the North. Dude!

[jeffrey_X]

110. Explain this..

to all the african american children born and raised in the inner city ghettos of America. These are a product of a vicious cycle that all started with slavery.

[Muddleoftheroad]

112. Yes and no

More than anything, they are a product of the Interstate highway system that allowed white flight from the cities.

I am with you in that we need to fix the cities. We don't need to do it for reparations, we just need to do it because they need fixing.

[Yupster]

118. The percentage of inner city kids

born out of wedlock to me is a far greater ball and chain around them then slavery's vestiges from 140 years ago. This can't be blamed on slavery, because for the first 100 years after slavery it wasn't a third the problem it has become in the last 30- 40 years.

[Isome]

163. Bill O'liely would be proud of you for using his screed!

Congratulations! The poster, Solomon, has as his tagline a quote from Neely Fuller. After reading the circumvolution you posted about indentured servants, I'll paraphrase that quote by saying: if you can't understand the difference between indentured servants and slavery, any information about the legacy of slavery —knowing the slavemaster would come creeping down to fuck your wife at night, and you'd shut up and take it or feel the whip— would only serve to confuse you further.

[Name removed]

224. Deleted message

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

[Isome]

228. Hey, what'd you say about your mother?

She's an asshole? That's too bad for you, but you shouldn't call her names like that. That may however explain why you can't read that the 650,000 civil war dead doesn't mean SHIT with regards to the debt of reparations! It doesn't mean a motherfucking thing.

They went to war for economic reasons. While they were at war they plundered and killed African slaves with as much efficacy as any white confederate. I don't give a damn. You got that?! Try harder and leave your mother out of this.

[Yupster]

56. The idea of a Cambodian

refugee family trooping through the jungle for weeks, losing half their number to mortar attacks and ambushes, just to reach a squalid Thai refugee camp. Then they spend five years there, and finally get the ticket to come to America with nothing. And they're supposed to pay reparations for slavery. That's just sick.

[recidivist]

124. I thought you knew. For quota purposes, Asians are honorary white people.

Thus saith the almighty Federal Government. Therefore, while the Cambodian family you reference does not bear direct ancestral guilt over American slavery, it does benefit from "white skin privilege" once it gets to the USA.

That, at least, is the theory. I didn't say I agreed with it.

[Terran]

74. Some responses to your very good points

I've debated this subject at DU a few times now, and I', very pro-rpearations.

1. Those individuals responsible for slavery are long dead, as well as the direct victims of slavery.

Our ancestors suffered. Why should we get the money?

Actually that's not entirely true. There are American corporations who, if not directly responsible, still directly benefitted by using slave labor, that are still in existence today. And there are, just barely, plenty of people alive today who are related to and knew people who were enslaved. In many cases there's a direct line of economic succession between slaves and currently living American citizens...thus the burdens of slavery continue to fall on people today because of the economic and social handicap their recent ancestors were subjected to.

2. Who's going to pay for it? What about people who just got here? What about those who had nothing to do with slavery? It doesn't seem fair to make them pay for something that had no hand in.

Whatever "it" turns out to be, the US Government should pay for it, not individual citizens. As taxpayers, we all have a collective economic stake in the taxes we send the federal government. In that sense, all Americans would accept ethical responsibility for having benfitted from slavery--that INCLUDES people who had no ancestors here in 1963, and people whose ancestors owned no slaves. ALL Americans have benefitted from the work done by slaves.

3. Some people have talked about money going to foundation for education on slavery, in order to heal the wounds of the past. That sounds great, but if we're just talking about handing out checks to people, I don't see how it's going to work.

I don't advocate handing out cash as reparations. In many cases, throwing money at a problem does work, but this is not one of them. I think the foundation is a good idea, but it would need money and powerto accomplish concrete things. If it could educate all Americans on what slavery really was, and on the burdens faced by African-Americans after the Civil War, it might be worth it.

In the past I have also proposed that every person of African descent in this county have their vocational and/or collegiate education payed for entirely by the government; or, exempt African-Americans from paying taxes for a limited period of time, say 10 years. There are numerous different ways to go about this without giving people cash. The fact that it's difficult to figure out how to accomplish fairly and properly should not be used as an excuse not to it.

Dirk

[Isome]

78. How sad that this big tent party...

Is just as ignorant about the movement as any freeper. How incredibly fucking sad!

It adds more fuel to the apathy fire. The stunning lack of knowledge about the issue shows me that Black issues are considered peripheral. Our issues are viewed as secondary, less important, frivolous even.

The immorality of enslaving Africans is compounded by the failure to acknowledge that "the grandeur of this country was based in substantial part upon the monumental resources made possible by African labor." It's bizzare that Americans today shrilly plead innocent when they haven't been adjudicated guilty of slave trading or ownership, nor are they being punished. However, if one's ancestors immigrated here after the end of slavery, rest assured it was a better place to come to because of the fruit of free labor. When they arrived, they not only obeyed the reprehensible laws that subjugated the formerly enslaved & their offspring, they adopted the lethally racist attitudes, and consequently enjoyed better opportunities as immigrants who were NOT of African descent than Americans who were! To deny it, is to deny the truth. That is chronicled, in part, by the book How the Irish Became White.

Irish Catholics came to this country as an oppressed race yet quickly learned that to succeed they had to in turn oppress their closest social class competitors, free Northern blacks. Back home these "native Irish or papists" suffered something very similar to American slavery under English Penal Laws. Yet, despite their revolutionary roots as an oppressed group fighting for freedom and rights, and despite consistent pleas from the great Catholic emancipator, Daniel O'Connell, to support the abolitionists, the newly arrived Irish-Americans judged that the best way of gaining acceptance as good citizens and to counter the Nativist movement was to cooperate in the continued oppression of African Americans.

In 1843 Daniel O'Connell wrote: "Over the broad Atlantic I pour forth my voice, saying, come out of such a land, you Irishmen; or, if you remain, and dare countenance the system of slavery that is supported there, we will recognize you as Irishmen no longer."

"In a letter published in the Liberator in 1854, it was stated that "passage to the United States seems to produce the same effect upon the exile of Erin as the eating of the forbidden fruit did upon Adam and Eve. In the morning, they were pure, loving, and innocent; in the evening, guilty.""

For the record:

The argument for reparations is to make sure that any remedy for the past sins of slavery and segregation goes to the poorest of the poor, the most deserving of reparations. By focusing on the most despised and oppressed, and marginalized segments of the African American community, we can solve the American problems of disparities in education, health care, employment, housing and criminal justice practices.

We see the same level of disparity on the basis of race in the 21st century that slaves and freed slaves during the period of Jim Crow laws experienced. The fact that these problems have persisted 140 years after slavery suggests that we have not done our job to adequately rid our society of the vestiges and badges of slavery. —Dr. Charles Ogletree

[durutti]

33. My thoughts...

I agree that there should be reparations for slavery in principle. One problem, though: almost all white Americans have some ancestor who was a slave.

[sweetheart]

34. statute of limitations

Rather... and end to the WOD and a "Fair Deal" extension of social programmes to all americans who are disenfranchised and downtrodden today.

The "fair deal" should include provisions for 100% healthcare and all that good stuff.... as the new bottom untouchable caste in america is just the extremely poor and homeless... no matter of race... yet indeed the race politics still are present.

Also, to repair from slavery, a constitutional provision to end all laws in states based on perpetuation of racism like voter disenfranchisement including gerrymandering. All people in prison should be able to contest their imprisonment on race-bias grounds.

A fair deal will set the things right TODAY, rather than focusing on past inequities of dead people.

[solinvictus]

35. No, but I'm going to ask another related question

I don't agree with reparations because no living American has owned a single slave. As an aside, another question is this; at what point when calls for affirmative action end? When will it be considered enough?

[Isome]

49. It's not about individuals who are dead...

It's about a GOVERNMENT'S responsibility... a government that survives.

How long was slavery and Jim Crow combined? For every year of that, there should be a year of affirmative action.

[jpgray]

Off topic--Isome, your sig proverb is neat (nt)

[solinvictus]

76. Affirmative action

But at what point does it end? Who is to decide when there has been enough affirmative action? I'm sorry, but with 69% of black children born into single parent homes, the current state is not a formula for future success. Now, as the flaming begins, I'm going to say it: this has NOTHING to do with slavery. No whites, Asians, Jews, or otherwise are holding young black girls at gunpoint and forcing them to get pregnant at a young age. With this, why is this anyone's responsibility except those who choose this mode of behavior? I'm not saying that the children should starve in the streets, but the public should not be held accountable for people having children that they have no means or even intentions of supporting. Is it something cultural to abandon one's pregnant girlfriend? I'm honestly curious as it seems to be the norm in the inner city nationwide. I simply can't understand how or why this behavior seems to be acceptable.

[dpibel]

143. Yeah! We've been suffering from affirmative action, like, forever

Lessee.

Founding of the country to end of chattel slavery: 90 years, give or take.

End of chattel slavery to end of "separate but equal" schools: 90 years in principle (Brown v. Topeka Bd. of Education); in actuality, hmmmm, maybe not quite there yet.

Brown v. Bd. of Educ. to statutory end of all sorts of legal discrimination: 10 years.

Time long-suffering white folk have suffered under the lash of affirmative action: 30 years. No! 40. At least 40.

So, let's see. We all white people should feel very sad because for the last 30 or 40 years there have been instances where, between equally qualified candidates, a black person got the nod?

I mean, we've had to put up with this for all those years. Those Black folk only just had 190 years of far worse treatment. I mean, jeez! Get over it.

This, of course, only includes the time of the existence of the USA as a nation, and ignores the preceding 300 years, during which white folk had been amassing land and wealth and Black folk hadn't.

One possible answer to your "How long must my people be held in bondage" question is this: another 160 years oughta do it.

Or we could try this: How about until everybody's on a more or less equilibrated footing?

All those who whine about "I never owned any slaves," ignore this simple fact: It's a systemic problem. Ever heard of red-lining in cities? Ever heard of differential financing rates? Ever heard of exclusionary covenants in deeds (in practice right up into the 1950s). For that matter, it hasn't been that long since, regardless of qualification, a Black person couldn't compete for many jobs. That, my friend, is affirmative action for white people, and it went on for years (and still goes on, just a bit more subtly).

As for your coded message about "cultural" differences. It's easy to find the Census Bureau figures breaking down out-of-wedlock births by race (just for interest, and for balance, because I can tell that you're interested and balanced, go look at the growth rates in out-of-wedlock births by race).

It's far more difficult to find breakdowns by income level and education. Do you think that those things might figure in, or are you pretty sure it's just "cultural"?

Of course, as a firm believer in personal responsibility, I'm sure you're comfortable with the idea that lack of education and living in poverty are just "cultural" matters, too, and are pretty much exclusively matters of "cultures" making bad choices.

It's apparently very comforting to you to say: Slavery was a long time ago. We solved that problem. You probably even believe that.

[solinvictus]

201. Personal responsibility

Who in the hell is holding a gun to a fifteen year old girl's head forcing her to get pregnant? An illigitimacy rate of nearly 70% is not a formula for success. How, pray tell, does this have anything to do with slavery? It's creating a culture of dependency in which there is no personal responsibility for any actions. Crime? Black rage, pure and simple. Children out of wedlock? Well, that's the destruction of the family from slavery. Don't ask for an explanation of rational cause and effect, just accept it. The situation is this; there are sperm donors walking around who impregnate these girls and have no intention of caring for their children. Again, how can we transfer the blame on this? It's a childish viewpoint to blame every circumstance, action, and personal choice on someone else.

[Isome]

204. Your true colors are showing.

The post you're responding to merely mentions teen birth rates (which are almost equal between the two races by the way... look it up). It's in no way the end all and be all of the issue.

Culture of Dependency? Oh' good grief Charlie Brown. Have you been visiting a RW website recently, either that or you've stored that phrase in your data bank for some reason. Does that describe how you feel about Blacks in America?

I'll let Tim Wise's essay about that nasty, innacurate phrase, speak to you:

...I got to thinking about projection recently, after receiving many an angry e-mail from folks who had read one or another of my previous commentaries, and felt the need to inform me that people of color are "looking for a handout," and are "dependent" on government, and of course, whites.

Such claims are making the rounds these days, especially as debate heats up about such issues as reparations for enslavement, or affirmative action. ...a prime example of projection, for in truth, no people have been as dependent on others throughout history as white folks.

We depended on laws to defend slavery and segregation so as to elevate us, politically, socially and economically. We depended on the Naturalization Act of 1790, to make all European immigrants eligible for nearly automatic citizenship, with rights above all persons of color. We depended on land giveaways like the Homestead Act, and housing subsidies that were essentially white-only for many years, like FHA and VA loans. Even the GI Bill was largely for whites only, and all of these government-sponsored efforts were instrumental in creating the white middle class. But it goes deeper than that.

...these same Europeans relied on slave labor to build a new nation and to create wealth for whites; wealth that was instrumental to financing the American Revolution, as well as allowing the textile and tobacco industries to emerge as international powerhouses. From 1790 to 1860 alone, whites and the overall economy reaped the benefits of as much as $40 billion in unpaid black labor. That, my friends, is dependence.

...throughout U.S. labor history, whites have depended on the subordination of workers of color; by the marking of black and brown peoples as the bottom rung on the ladder – a rung below which they would not be allowed to fall. By virtue of this racialized class system whites could receive the "psychological wage" of whiteness, even if their real wages left them destitute. That too is dependence, and a kind that has marked even the poorest whites.

...white dependence on people of color continues to this day. Each year, African Americans spend over $500 billion with white-owned companies: money that goes mostly into the pockets of the white owners, white employees, white stockholders, and white communities in which they live. And yet we say black people need us? We think they are the dependent ones, relying as we assume they do on the paltry scraps of an eviscerated welfare state? Now let's just cut the crap. Who would be hurt more: black folks if all welfare programs were shut down tomorrow, or white folks, if blacks decided they were through transferring half-a-trillion dollars each year to white people and were going to keep their money in their own communities?

Or what about the ongoing dependence of white businesses on the exploitation of black labor? Each year, according to estimates from the Urban Institute, over $120 billion in wages are lost to African Americans thanks to discrimination in the labor market. That's money that doesn't end up in the hands of the folks who earned it, but rather remains in the bank accounts of owners. That my friends, is dependence. ...

Projection isn't pretty.

[durutti]

147. What I Think

Racism and sexism are facts in the United States -- more so than most folks would care to admit. If you aren't a white male, you have been discriminated against. Affirmative action is a form of compensation for the failure of the U.S. government to guarantee everyone equal justice under the law.

Discrimination on some ridiculous basis will always exist, though the groups that are discriminated against may change. And those groups should always be compensated.

[jeter]

36. I oppose it...here's why

Because reparations is basically punishing people who never owned slaves for people who never were slaves.

I don't mean to say that slavery never existed. Obviously it did. But no one in America today ever owned a slave. No one in American was ever enslaved. So we're going to be punished for the sins of our great grandfathers.

Because the government doesn't exist independant of the people. The government is the people. It is our taxes that would pay for reparations. We'd pay for it. Yet we didn't do anything wrong.

Would you support punishing people for the crimes of their mothers/fathers? If a man commits a crime, should the son have to pay for it? Should the son be imprisoned if a father gets away with murder? The answer is obviously no. Reparations work on the same kind of logic.

[Isome]

88. It's not a punishment to you or any other white person.

It's a debt PAST due.

Seriously... the punishment lament has to come from some deep rooted sense of guilt. I never felt PUNISHED when my tax dollars were used to pay reparations to the Japanese. But when reparations for descendants of African slaves... oh' cry me a river! White people trip over their tongues to cry about the unfairness of being PUNISHED, about their forebearers who didn't own slaves... oh' boo hoo!

[yagotme]

113. I agree with you, jeter, and would add

the point that the men who ran our government then are also gone, so our leaders have changed, as our government has also changed since that time. Some of the posts I have read so far would basically implicate every president, every congress since then of the crime of slavery. I'ts OUR tax dollars, all of ours. I don't see how you would be able to go to the treasury and determine who ows what to who, and if you are 1/2 black, 1/2 white, do you have to give money (taxes) to the government, to pay yourself? Because if this were tocome about, the tax rate would probably rise, and everybody knows that if you send money to a bureaucracy to be sorted out, you never get the same amount back out. So in the example above, paying in an extra $500 because they are 1/2 white, and getting $400 back, because they are 1/2 black, isn't a very good return.

I cannot see making someone pay for someone else's crime, be it a direct ancestor, or someone you've never heard of.

[Isome]

151. And everyone conveniently forgets the Japanese raparations...

When they cry about being PUNISHED. Why did you accept PUNISHMENT from their internment? Did you do it personally? Did you benefit from it personally?

Think a bit harder folks.

[Fescue4u]

37. cant afford it

To pay anything meaningful would bankrupt the nation and make any payments made worthless.

[Silverhair]

39. Politically impossible.

The party that seriously backs this will lose almost the entire white and latino vote sector - permently

And it will open the gates for other groups to press their claims for ancient wrongs. native-Americans, Mexicans, French (Didn't get proper value for Louisanna, Russians (Didn't get proper value for Alaska)Irish (Near slave wages building canals) Chinese (Near slave wages building railroads, Women - centuries of subugation, near slave wages, etc.

[Zuni]

41. Absolutely Not

1. Who would pay? Not me. My own grandparents were slave laborers in nazi germany. They were from Russia, and my grandmothers side were definetly serfs (slaves) and most likely my grandfather's side were too. Russians do not get a check for Russia's slavery (ended during the US Civil War), nor do they get a check for reperations from The Bolshevik/Stalin years of slave labor camps, genocide and famines. They also do not get reperations from the germans, who used many as slaves and killed millions of them.
My other side emigrated to the US at the turn of the century. none of my ancestors, as far as I know, were in the US before the 1890s.

2. Who would pay? Not one person in the US actually owned slaves. How can you punish a living man for something a long dead ancestor did? Sounds illegal and unconstitutional and immoral to me.

3. Who would get the money? Not one black alive was ever a slave. If they can get money for a long dead relative's suffering, then where is my check? My ancestors suffered too, badly.


4. What about the descendants of African slavers? What about Arab slavers? The arabs enslaved far more than ever came to the US (which only counts for like 3% of the Transatlantic slave trade---most went to the carribean)

5. There already is Affirmative action. That is a much better way to repair old damage.

[Isome]

70. Why is it viewed as punishment?

Again I ask, did you feel punished when paying reparations to Japanese & Japanese-Americans? Did ya'?

Their internment was legal. Did you sanction it? Did you benefit from it? Yet, you paid for the reparations if you were a citizen of this country in the not too distant past.

[AP]

44. At least let John Conyers (D-Mich.) have the money to do a study.

I don't know how we can have an informed opinion on this issue if Congress keeps blocking even the barest of bones investigation into the issue.

Incidentally, I tend to believe that if the children of Holocaust victims (from 60 years ago) can recover from Swiss banks which stole their parents and grand parents wealth, we should at least consider if the same logic applies to the victims of slavery.

[Silverhair]

57. Do you have a death wish for the Democtratic Party ? n/t

[AP]

59. No. I have a mad desire for people to have an informed opininion.

What's the difference between slavery and Holocaust reparations?

[Silverhair]

65. Statute of limitations.

Many holocaust victims are still alive. The specific property and the amount can often be identified. Also, if a person opens a bank account and dies, the heirs are entitled to the account. Many of the victims had Swiss accounts. Also, none of that is happening in the USA.

In the USA, you are basically talking about the rest of the population being taxed to give a large check to each black person in the country. I find it hard to think of anything more racially divisive than that. In the real world a party that even hinted at something like that would have only a few starry eyed idealists voting for it next time around. That party would vanish. That is reality.

Since the cost of your idea is for the Democratic Party to die, then my original question remains. Do you have a death wish for the Party?

[Yupster]

68. Statute of Limitations

generally apply to crimes. Slavery was legal.

[Silverhair]

69. True. It was a flippant way of suggesting the question:

How far back do you go in righting old wrongs? Why stop with slavery? The Romans were pretty rough guys too. And I think the Aztec decendents could have a case against Spain. Where does it stop, and why does it stop there?

[Isome]

81. The Roman Empire is no more...

The American government still exists. A government's liability for crimes it commits never ends; as long as the government is in existence it is liable.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

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

[AP]

73. Families of Holocaust VICTIMS got reparations over 60 years after their

parents and grandparents died. There's no statute of limitations that's that long. (Except that here's no statute of limitation on murder.)

You aren't thinking creatively.

Slavery and the holocaust (along with colonialism, and the genocide in Rwanda, and the evils of Pol Pot) are some of the worst things that ever happened on earth which still have ramifications today.

Not only do they deserve novel, unique legal consideration in the interesting of doing justice, but novel, unique legal treatment my create an adequate disincentive to things like that happening again. If you know you're not going to get away with it, you're not going to try it.

[Ksec]

51. Im not in favor unless its in the form of school vouchers

Maybe we could pay for college for the grandchildren of proven slaves, not just a giveaway to all black people. First you must prove that you are a descendant of a slave though.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

58. Yes, I support CASH reparations for slavery

I want decendents of white indentured servants compensated next, then perhaps others people with families cheated out of money.

[NickB79]

61. Yes, I want them too

My people marched out of Egypt a few thousand years ago as slaves, and now it's time for Pharaoh to pay. <sarcasm>

[arewethereyet]

62. well, if you can proove ancestory to that time

then you got a donkey and some real estate coming per Mr Lincoln.

seems pretty hard to proove though.

[NewJerseyDem]

64. No

We can't bring back Reconstruction. The only way to move past the racism in this country is to look forward to the future and not look back to the past. Reparations would create a whole new generation of racists and that is not what this country needs.

Reparations are just fundamentally wrong anyway. The idea that I am supposed to give money to someone just because they had a great-great-great grandfather who was a slave is ridiculous. Maybe it should have been done in 1865 but this is 2003. We missed our chance and it is too late to make up for it.

It would also seem difficult to go back and prove who has an ancestor who was a slave and who doesn't.

[LiberalBushFan]

67. not for monetary reparations

but reparations by getting the racist crusaders out of the white house

[vtrtl]

71. Assuming its possible...

Let's stipulate that there is some practical way to implement a reparation program.
We come up with the money.
We come up with a way to pay those who deserve it...

Will it be over at that point?
I mean can we then say "paid in full." No more affirmative action programs....

If so, then perhaps reparations won't help those who still suffer from the history of slavery...

If not, then... well why spend the money if if will not change anything?

The day I was born there were people alive who had been born slaves.

In another two or three generations distinct "racial identities" will be very difficult to discern.

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. No, the debt has been paid

Before I go into other reasons this is a bad idea, it's a debt that has already been paid -- in blood -- by the 600,000 Americans who died during the Civil War and the hundreds of thousands more who were wounded.

That war and our president freed my people. Sure, I wish more had been done and it might have happened had not an assassin ended President Lincoln's life.

Now here we are in 2003, nearly 140 years after the war and we are still talking reparations.

* Who would pay? Clearly, the government (which means all of us) and big business (which means the same).
* Who would get money? Who the hell knows? Every African-American? How about those who came here after 1865? How about those who have, as I do, partial bloodlines? Or maybe, African-Americans who have some blood pre-war and some blood from ancestors in the islands.
* I am a little bit Irish in addition to my African roots, do I pay myself?

This is a horrendous, divisive distraction. We need to move forward not as a nation of groups but as a nation of ONE people. Let's look at the problems in the nation and not worry about who has been hurt in the past. Let's worry about building a future -- together.

Either way, I won't take the money. To do so would be a slap in the face to those who died for my freedom. I owe them that much.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[TexasMexican]

85. black on black anger...

when will it end. :eyes:

[Isome]

86. what is black on black anger?

Is that like the white on white anger epitomized by the right wing's hatred of Clinton?

[TexasMexican]

92. ...

I'm just messing with you because you claim to be black, just like muddleoftheroad claims to be black, but you seem to be angry with because you think his opinion is worthless, or is it just because its different than your own.

[Isome]

97. I don't claim it... I am it!

And, I'm not angry. I'm just not phony. Some people prefer to smile in your face and talk shit behind your back. I don't. If something is bullshit to me... well, that's what I'll call it. If something is funny, I'll laugh out loud. In the case of muddleoftheroad, I just prefer not to waste words on someone who doesn't know and refuses to learn.

There is a reparations movement that has addressed each and every issue brought up in this thread. Sadly, those who are most adamant in their opinions are the most uninformed. And, without anger, I don't mind telling them they're uninformed.

;-) How can you (generically speaking) call yourself a member of the BIG TENT party and be completely ignorant about an issue that concerns a CORE group of your party?

[Muddleoftheroad]

102. I have read more than I care about the bogus reparations movement

I am done with them.

They are divisive. They are ignorant of history. And, ultimately, they are a waste of time. This is a fantasy. Our time is better spent on reality.

[Isome]

152. Stop I say...

You haven't read enough to learn the basic facts. You've proven that in your posts.

[Muddleoftheroad]

168. Basic Facts

You mean like the 600,000 men killed in the Civil War?

[Muddleoftheroad]

101. You just want to think that

Because it helps with your alleged argument.

The reality is that this debt has been paid -- by both white and black Americans wearing blue and gray 140 years ago.

[Isome]

160. Armstrong Williams & Larry Elder are calling you...

They want their arguments back.

[Muddleoftheroad]

166. Very cute, but not much of an argument

Care to make a counter one or is yours so bankrupt you just choose to be snide?

[Isome]

177. Speaking of bankrupt...

When will you refrain from trotting out your bankrupt pronouncements and actually respond to the substantive rebuttals to your posts?

[Muddleoftheroad]

179. Let me know when you have some

[Name removed]

191. Deleted message

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

[Leftist78]

77. It's a tough one...

Let's say there was a corporation back then that benefited directly from slavery. If that company is still around today, then obviously they should pay reparations. That's a pretty simple one IMO.

Then you've got the larger question. I don't know that there's a way to make it fair, but if we enjoy the freedoms given to us by previous generations, then we also have to accept responsibility for what those previous generations did. Personally I know because of extensive genealogy work done by members of my family that nobody in my family ever owned slaves. They were all poor sharecroppers, and barely were able to make ends meet themselves, but I believe that the complacency and support of our governments, local, state, and federal, is all of our responsibility, and because of that, I think we should atone for what has been done.

I can see the slippery slope argument on this one too though. The fact is, there were many groups of people that our government has oppressed in one way or another. Some are more easily identifiable than others. Women, Native Americans, poor whites, all have some claim of government repression, and countless other large and small groups could have the same claim.

In the end, I think it would be the right thing to do, but where is the line? How bad does the oppression have to be in order for reparations to be justified? These are the questions that I still wrestle with on this issue. :shrug:

[Blue_Chill]

84. This will lose more white votes and

ifit comes out of tax dollars you will find the largest minority, hispanics, wondering why the hell they just paid for slavery.

[Isome]

87. Where else does money come from...

when the government has to pay a bill... but from tax revenue? Where else?

When will people learn what's going on instead of crying hysterically about being punished, when none has been suggested?

[yagotme]

116. Punishment

can be rendered in fines being paid. If I am forced to pay a fine for someone else, am I then being punished? I pay taxes, so the money I am paying is to be used to pay, basically, a "fine" imposed by my government. If they pay these reparations, and then have to raise my tax bill to maintain the general budget, isn't that punishment? I believe it is.

[Isome]

186. And... how punished did you feel paying reparations to the Japanese?

And, how big of an objection did you make to it?

[TexasMexican]

144. whats going on...

is that reparations will never happen.

Its not going to happen now, and it is even less likely as we move into the future.

Despite the fact that blacks are a major part of the democratic party they are only 12% of the US population (with not much projected growth in the future) and I doubt very much that the other 88% of the population will ever support reparations.

[Silverhair]

172. Yes. And any party that seriously pushes reparations will feel the wrath.

of that other 88%. I can think of nothing more racially divisive than this issue.

[JCMach1]

93. I don't support them-- any amount the US could or would

provide would honestly be an insult?

How can you pay this back? not with money...

With TRUE equality and opportunity... and, perhaps more importantly a REAL commitment to social justice in this country.

[Isome]

94. Well go look it up...

Because THAT's the form of reparations they're proposing.

[Walt Starr]

104. To establish standing for reparations for slavery

The African American community should first seek reparations for segregation while making the argument that segregation is a direct result of slavery.

Standing is required for civil cases. Nobody alive in the United States today was directly affected by slavery. By making the case that segregation was a direct result of slavery, the case can be built that every African American alive today has suffered direct harm from slavery.

Connect the dots in the right order, and the case can be made.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

109. that sounds like an effective strategy

very good suggestions, imo.

[ProfessorGAC]

107. No. It's Impractical Monetarily

I think that's why affirmative action programs, however, need to be maintained and modified to continue to right those wrongs and get racial groups on equal footing. That would seem to me, to be the most logical reason to affect an affirmative action program.

My family got here in 1930. So, would i be excluded, since i am 1st gen american and not one person in my familia was here until 65 years after the slavery days? What about a Pakistani immigrant who came here in 1995? Would that person have their taxes reduced by the amount allocated to reparations from the gen'l revenue fund?

What about Robert Johnson, Oprah Winfrey, and Michael Jordan. Would they get tax exemptions, since obviously none of them or their families could have ever benefitted from the slavery days?

There's too many exceptions and too few logical ways to equitably address monetary reparations. But, like i said, there are ways to make it right in the long run.

I know that's hard on impatient people like Americans, especially those who are tired of being dumped on. But, i really don't see any workable method for monetary repairs.
The Professor

[Terran]

115. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

I mean, when there is no concrete proposal on the table, you have no idea what the costs would be, do you? So how can you say it would be "impractical" from a monetary standpoint?

I also just want to reiterate: no American, no matter how short or long a time their family has lived in America, can be "exempt" from shouldering this burden. The fact is, all of America continues to benefit from the labor done by slaves. America would not be nearly so well developed, infrastructurally, without its continual history of exploting cheap and free labor. Slavery is a part of that. We all benefit; we all pay.

[Yupster]

119. If slavery was such an economic benefit to the country,

then why were the slave states so much poorer and more backward than the free states?

If the slave states alone got to benefit from this economic bonanza, wouldn't you think the slave states would turn that advantage into a much higher standard of living, better infrastructure, etc?

[AP]

127. The benefits weren't spread equally. They were concentrated among those

who benefited from cheap labor (duh).

It's impact on society as a whole is quite negative. It held back progress, it was irrational, and it created a great deal of misery for human beings. Not only that, it held down wage rates for people at the bottom of the social ladder, regardless of skin color.

For VERY MANY PEOPLE pre-1865, if you have NOTHING to sell, you still have your labor to sell.

How can you sell your labor for a competitive rate if there's a class of citizens who were forced to give their labor away for the cost of shitty housing, bad food, and a few people willing to wield a whip and a gun from atop a horse?

You can't. Slavery was great for concentrated wealth and the ownders of industry which required a great deal of labor.

The problem today is that we still have racism driving down wage rates. Employers pay as much for labor as the most downtrodden American or immigrant is willing to accept. When Arnold makes it harder for immigrants to drive, he makes their lives more miserable and less competitive in the labor market, and drives down wages, not just for that immigrant, but for all Americans at the bottom of the social ladder.

And another aspect of slavery that creates irrationality is that when slaves were freed they weren't compensated for their labor. If they immediately got all their rights, they would have all had successful claims in courts of law, which would have compensated them, and would have put them in a position to compete economically with their former masters, which would have made the whole economy better.

Instead, they were left with very little, thus creating a downward pressure on wages and middle class wealth that, in some communities, persists today.

That's what reparations would target. It would correct the economic irrationalities that result in an under class which pulls all middle, working, and lower class people down, but pads the profits of peoploe who make money off of cheap labor and misery (ie, people who RENT furniture, people who make money off credit, and other BS like that).

[ProfessorGAC]

134. Reading For Comprehension Is A Skill

I never mentioned anything about monetary quantity. There are too many citizens who would have every right to feel cheated if those reparations came out of their taxes. Rich black people, for instance, would be the last people out of whose taxes such monies should be derived.

That's what i said. You should read more carefully. I am concerned about the equity and source of funds and how it would be distributed.

Secondly, i think you should read some history. The most underdeveloped area of this country in 1860 was south of the Mason-Dixon line. On a per capita basis, the west had more roads, railroads, and profitable businesses than did the South. And it was still being settled!

The Southern economy was in shambles and they were providing no development to the country as a whole, so your facts are grossly in error. The North had 60% of the people, but made 88% of revenues and 94% of all profits as of 1860. And they were paying their employees. (Albeit not to the level that was fair.)

Lastly, you can reiterate all you want, about "no american . . .can be exempt". Your word is not gospel on this matter. Your opinion is no more valid than mine, and declaring it so is not likely to sway my opinion. Especially since you objected to things i didn't even say.
The Professor

[Isome]

184. Post #115 doesn't refer to, or mention "monetary quality".

It does however say that your objection lacks logic and proof.

[chiburb]

135. Hey Prof! We agree on something!

Well framed thoughts, nice post.
Did you see Laura Washington's column in the Chi. Sun-Times today?
It's on this very subject:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/washington/cst-edt-laura08.html

[9215]

108. What is the balance due?

Or do we even factor in that 650,000 white men died over the issue of slavery?

Lincoln said every drop of blood shed by the lash will be repaid with the sword; it was.

Why does this question of reparations keep coming up when the answer is so obvious and has been repeated so many times?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

111. I feel Affirmative Action is the best reparation people have come up...

...so far. Although I would suggest a different tack, like: more funding for schools with more than X % black or other minorities in the student body. Or: less tax to be paid by the employer if employee is of minority group. May be good or horrible ideas, feel free to comment.

[Isome]

158. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

What makes you believe Affirmative Action is compensation for slavery and Jim Crow? Let me be the first one to tell you that it isn't. It's to ensure that the attitudes that condoned slavery don't keep people of African descent out of the workplace. It's not compensation for anything, especially in light of the continued discrimination even WITH Affirmative Action in place.

[Gringo]

117. NO. For several reasons.

First of all, it would be very difficult to find out and prove just whose ancestors had been enslaved, and how much compensation should be given (should a person whose ancestry is 1/4 slave get 1/4 compensation?) May whites were indentured servants under horrible conditions, what about them? The Indians were subject to genocide and forced repatriations - what about them? It inevitably serves to make the misery and suffering of one group or race (or at least their ancestors) more important ovr valid than that of another, and that makes it unfair.

I'd be more friendly to income redistribution schemes based on the recipients' poverty. Why should Oprah get slave reparations while a white Appalachian family starves? Makes no sense. I think the US government DOES owe all these groups an official apology, a renouncement of such atrocities, and even a monument to opressed peoples on the Mall in Washington, with a pledge that we will always respect human rights of all peoples from this day forward.

[Ficus]

121. Does anyone realize that there were white slaves

and they were called "indentured servants" in colonial days. People had to sign their lives away just to come here from Europe in some cases. Many of these people agreed to work for a period of time, however, many either did not live it out because of the treatment they recieved or many didn't know how long they had "served" because they were illiterate or manipulated by their masters. And there were Native American slaves too. So who all gets reparations? Everyone? Just something to think about.

[noonwitch]

125. Indentured servants came here voluntarily, for the most part

They were frequently given land in exchange for their service, when the terms of service were completed. It was sort of like joining the military or peace corps in that it was limited and there was usually some compensation. I'm sure there were abuses of individuals, but not on the type of scale that black slaves suffered.

The white servants were not abducted by force, chained in the hold of a filthy ship and brought here under the worst conditions possible, to be slaves for the rest of their lives, and their children, too. The african slaves were considered sub-human and mistreated generation after generation because of that mindset. This type of cultural wound is not healed after a few years, it takes a long time.

I'm opposed to a cash payout to every descendant of slaves, because the government can't afford it. That doesn't mean that some acknowledgement of the fact that the slaves did deserve to be paid for their contributions shouldn't be made by the government. I do feel that by improving schools in communities with large numbers of black americans, improving how we assist people in starting businesses, and other methods are a good way for society to enact reparations. Hey, do like we did for the indians and legalize something and give african americans a monopoly. I have an idea where to start.....

[Ficus]

130. I agree

and I'm not necessarily against reparations. They can come in many forms. I think of course an apology would be in order, and perhaps something like a museum or monument, anything to build awareness for future generations of the hardships that were faces by slaves in this country.

And I don't mean to belittle the experience of those people who were forced into slavery. The common misconception was that these because these people agreed to this deal, that they actually did recieve compensation, which many did not.

[Yupster]

139. And Black slaveowners

though to be fair, when the cases of Black slaveowners have been looked into, most have been cases of a freed slave buying his extended family one at a time and never getting them officially freed. There were some actual Black slaveowners doing it for profit, but they appear to have been a minority of even that tiny minority of Black slaveowners.

Also, should there be a difference between people whose relatives were slaves or free Blacks. In Virginia alone at the start of the Civil War, there were over 50,000 free Blacks.

For a while after the Civil War, there was a real class distinction between freedmen and Blacks who were free brfore "secess"

[spychoactive]

145. ya learn something everyday

black slave owners huh?

go figure...there's one ya just don't hear about...

hmmm...

[Isome]

159. Yeah, and don't forget...

Most Black slaveowners bought their relatives, children, wives, husbands, friends... so they could be free. Don't forget that part huh'!

[recidivist]

173. And black confederates.

Not many, but a few. My favorite anecdote concerns the Free Men of Color, a New Orleans militia outfit dating back to French times. They had served in the the War of 1812, and they naturally volunteered their services to the State of Louisiana at the start of the Civil War. Unfortunately, their offer embarassed the confederates terribly, and they were turned down.

Yankee though I am, I almost wish (from the distance of 143 years and the comfort of my armchair) that the confederate authorities had accepted. Would've added an especially fascinating chapter to the story. Plus today, we'd probably have scads of black confederate re-enactors to liven things up.

[spychoactive]

176. interesting is an understatement

i'm glad that i found a forum where this kind of information can be brought to light without the typical sh*tstorm that usually ensues...

a black confederate re-enactor...again...go figure

some part of me is chuckling at that irony of that thought...

i wish i could just snap my fingers and make it al better...

one love
spike

[Isome]

178. Black conferdates are new to you?

It only gets sadder. As I type, I'm on the phone with someone who is ranting and raving about the absolute ignorance displayed in this thread. ...and I'm putting it mildly.

There were definitely Black confederates. They were servants and were made to serve, wash dishes, cook, clean, etc. For the most part, Black confederates weren't trusted with guns. If Black Union soldiers were captured by white confederates, they were killed. *sigh* There were freemen who fought, too.

I always wonder what the hell any of that has to do with reparations that are long past due. What was their frame of reference?

Does anyone think of that, or are they too busy rubbing their hands together with a perverted sense of glee.

An abused child is catatonic at the thought of being separated from the abusing parent. Does that mitigate the damage done to the child? Does that child deserve the abuse?

Japanese-Americans volunteered for the army after being interned. Does that have any bearing on whether they DESERVED the reparations they received? There were Jewish people who collaborated with the Nazis. Does that negate the atrocities of the concentration camps.

This is too fucking sad that rational thought goes out the window at the very mention of reparations because Black folks are concerned!

[Muddleoftheroad]

180. Not all of us are concerned

Some of us think it a silly and divisive idea to focus on reparations. That debt was marked, "paid in full" about 140 years ago.

[Isome]

183. Bankrupt as usual.

Added: And, some of US are downright grateful that you and yours weren't the ones we needed to advocate for parity in this country. WE understand that the "talented tenth" isn't merely about education, it refers to those with intestinal fortitude and a willingness to take a righteous stand. WE know that some of US (or in this case, those claiming to be us) would rather bow & scrape and live on their knees.

WE understand you.

[GabysPoppy]

185. Why do you find it necessary

to belittle someone who disagrees with you?

:shrug:

[Isome]

188. Belittle?

Did I belittle you? I've read the posts to you and don't see why you'd say that.

[GabysPoppy]

193. I wasn't referring to myself at all

your responses to me just didn't make any sense, they were not belittling.

[Isome]

197. Your continued confusion doesn't make any sense to me...

nor does your most recent question. We're even.

[Isome]

189. On second thought... let me ask you this:

How contemptuous (belittling) is it to reject the reparations idea based on the passage of time, when formerly enslaved Africans and their descendants were LEGISLATED OUT of the political process? They had no political power and rarely had access to the judicial system, except to be a victim of it. Jim Crow in the south ensured that, and de facto Jim Crow in the North maintained that. Everyone knows it, yet, they still object based on the fact that no one demanded reparations sooner?

How belittling is it to fume about not wanting to be punished for slavery, yet voicing no objections to being punished for the internment of the Japanese & Japanese-Americans? Who here that refuses to be punished also cried about reparations paid )note the past tense) to various groups of Eskimos, Native Americans and Aleuts —more than $1 billion combined?

The vapid objections are belittling! But these are just words on the screen. They carry no threat of physical harm, or derogatory commentary about an individual's worth to the world. It's all about the issue at hand, nothing more.

[Muddleoftheroad]

199. I don't bow, I don't scrape

Not to anyone, including you and your misplaced ideas about how we need to fix black problems in the U.S.

Reparations would do more harm to African-Americans in the U.S. than anything since slavery. It will chase away our allies and turn the nation into an Us/Them camp like it hasn't been since the Civil War.

Instead, we should focus on fixing what's wrong in America for all Americans.

* Fix the cities -- and in so doing we will provide better places to live for many of the nation's poor.
* Fix education -- Lord knows it can't get much worse in the urban areas.
* Fix healthcare -- Or just make sure everyone has it.

That's a hell of a start. And it builds on themes that all Americans can embrace and that can cut across race and party lines.

[Isome]

202. You kneel, bow & scrape!

You kneel when you relegate justice to people of African descent to a subordinate position, by insisting the issue is divisive, as though a rift isn't already present... and shows no signs of closing. Acceptance by others is more important to those who kneel than SELF-ACCEPTANCE, and security in the knowledge of your rights as an American whose ancestors contributed not only to the greatness of this country, but to the civilization of the world.

You bow to the "larger" community by uttering ridiculous gratitude to those who died in the Civil War, despite the fact that it wasn't about your kind, nor even my kind. It was an economic war (as most are). And, Lincoln was a supremacist who didn't believe Africans were equal to white people; he was ready to repatriate the whole lot of African slaves and their descendants to territory on the Continent. He didn't want US here.

Your gratitude should be reserved for those who died ON THEIR FEET so that you wouldn't have to face the Knight Riders, or vigilante lynch mobs. Thank Ida Wells Barnett. Thank John Singleton. Thank Fanny Lou Hamer, who just got sick and tired of BEING sick and tired. Thank Viola Liuzzo who wasn't afraid of what other white folks would say if she gave people a ride! Thank Emmit Till for gawwd's sake. As a teenager, even he knew he had a RIGHT to say BYE to a white woman... and he died knowing it. You have the audacity to thank people who would have just as soon spit on you and sent you to Africa in the hold of a cargo ship —the same way they brought my people over here— than look at you.

You scrape with the best of them when you proffer vomitous and nonsensical sentiments about the issue, when you differentiate between what's good for America and what's good for Americans of African descent. Justice is good for America, and that's what reparations represents... justice.

Live your life on your knees. I'm not phased, MLK wouldn't be either. Though he was in favor of reparations, he knew others wouldn't dare be strong enough to STAND strong in the face of opposition to it.

No, you would never kneel to me. I'm Black. You reserve that for non-blacks. I understand your "misplaced ideals".

[gpandas]

126. "Reparations for Slavery

Don't know until someone says how much and who. Would a person
with a black and a white parent get half a share? I wish the
people who favor this payment would give me some numbers. 

[Ficus]

131. it varies

some want to advocate the equivalent of 40 acres and a mule with inflation to be given to decendents of slaves. Others advocate some sort of a memorial or museum such as the Holocaust Museum. Some advocate funding black areas more, or predominatley black schools more. IMHO, I think the government should at least apologize to everyone, no matter what color, for allowing that injustice to go on for so long.

[Ficus]

132. and oh yeah

I welcome to DU.
:toast:

[bobbyboucher]

133. Distraction issue.

Just another of those fringe issues that Repubes would love to have front and center in the Presidential campaing. No doubt would be a big winner for them to get out the racist vote.

Let's debate this issue down the road a bit.

[genius]

138. Certainly

I think the best reparation would be to allow the blacks to enslave the whites for a few years. Then people like Dean might get it.

[Hammie]

140. Opposed

A terrible war was fought to decide the issue 150 years ago. Let it drop.

BTW none of my forebears were in north america at the time and I'll be damned if I will recognize any claim on myself for a practice that ended more than a century before my birth.







IBTL

[GabysPoppy]

146. Yes

And it should take the shape of

1) Affirmative action programs

2) Money pumped in to build affordable housing in minority neighborhoods

3) Money pumped into the educational system in minority neighborhoods

4) Health insurance programs guaranteeing coverage for minorities

5) Jobs created by establishing businesses in minority neighborhoods

No to writing checks to individuals

[Isome]

156. No to writing checks to individuals

That's not what was proposed, so it's not an issue.

[GabysPoppy]

161. What did I miss

Here is the entire original post.

"Reparations for Slavery?


Why or why not?"

No single issue was proposed. It was just a general question.

I am at a loss to your meaning.

[Isome]

162. Why is it so difficult to understand?

Checks to individuals are not a part of the equation. That has specifically NOT been part of the proposed compensation, therefore your objection to it isn't necessary.

[Muddleoftheroad]

169. Actually

There have been numerous proposals and no one person or group speaks for the reparations movement.

Perhaps you would care to list the proposals you endorse.

[David Zephyr]

155. Reparations Question an Old One Here at the DU. I Support Them.

I support reparations for slavery and have posted here many times accordingly.

[DjTj]

164. So I'm sitting here studying for my first law school exam...

...I see this thread, and things come to my head like:

Statute of Limitations - this applies to torts as well as crimes so there's definitely no common law basis for bringing this claim. If reparations are going to happen, Congress will have to do something and they're going to have a real hard time trying to pay only the descendants of slaves because a blanket check to only african-americans is sure to violate some sort of equal protection...

It's a Contracts exam I'm taking tomorrow, so some things come to my head that may not necessarily apply here, but the logic may be helpful:

Courts would attempt to award expectation damages, which is the value that slave descendants would have had today if their ancestors had not been enslaved. Of course in that case, many would be in Africa and we'd have a hard time measuring that standard of living with ours. To determine what's really fair we would have to compare an African in the 17th century with one who came across as a slave. We would probably actually find that the average African-American is living better than the average African. In any case, a court would almost certainly pay nothing because the damages are speculative.

It would have been very smart for the government to have paid reparations at the time of emancipation; allowing freed slaves to establish homesteads in the west would likely have avoided many of the problems we have today. Unfortunately, we did not have that foresight and now we're facing problems that probably cannot be corrected in a shorter time than it took to create them.

Reparations, just like a tort award, shold serve as a magic bullet that "makes the victim whole". If we could properly value reparation, we wouldn't need affirmative action or any pro-minority policies. Unfortunately, that value is going to rather untractable.

Affirmative action is the reasonable alternative, but it has done almost all that it can; we're literally at the point now where colleges are fighting over african-american students. It's time to work further down the educational ladder. The sad truth is that we may never achieve the kind of statistical parity that we see as the promised land...However, we've come quite far in the past few decades and we just need to keep doing what we're doing and think of more creative ways to augment our current programs. Equality is a goal that can be achieved if we work at it; reparations are a red herring.

...alright, back to the books...

[Isome]

192. Unfortunately, you OVERLOOKED the precedent already set:

Numerous cases, wherein the consequences of the crime committed are visited upon descendants, are well known. When property has been taken, the loss is born not only by the owner, but also by his descendants who have lost an inheritance which they otherwise would have gained. Those are the cases international law gives a remedy, even though the claimant was not born at the time the property was taken... stolen.

Example:

The Order made under the British Foreign Compensation Act of 1950 provided that the Foreign Compensation Commission should treat as established any claim relating to certain property in Egypt which had been sequestrated by the Nasser government if the applicant was the owner "or is the successor in title of such owner", making it plain that the children and the grandchildren of the original dispossessed owners were entitled to claim.

"In principle, therefore, the passage of time since slavery ended is no barrier to the claim of African peoples, provided that it can be pro-led that the consequences of the crime of slavery continue to manifest themselves to the prejudice of Africans now living in Africa and the Diaspora. On this point, the evidence of historical experts is clear and unequivocal."

[cade]

194. !@#$%#@$% !!!!

damned dial-up connection, see next post.

[cade]

195. the U.S. ignores all inconvienient international laws

especially when native american tribes bring these pesky matters to court. Native americans were also enslaved.
Alot of the land the U.S. now has was taken by force, and outright lies. Treaties designed to support the tribes in exchange for tribal lands and game ( the way they supported themselves before being forced on reservations ) were ignored. People in charge of the indian's affairs are corrupt, there are alot of lawsuits going now about this stuff.
http://www.indiantrust.com/
here is an interesting article
http://www.dickshovel.com/rogue.html
site index to an educational site
http://www.dickshovel.com/www.html
legislation history
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/historyweb/issues/native.htm

Indian Removal Act

Act of May 28, 1830. (4 Stat. 411)

An Act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories and for their removal west of the river Mississippi.

This Act provided that in exchange for federal lands west of the Mississippi, the government would claim lands held by Indian tribes. The Act provided that such exchanges would be voluntary, payment would be made for improvements to the land, and permanent guarantees to new lands for suitable housing.

The area established by the federal government was then known as "Indian Territory" (Oklahoma). Although it was supposed to be voluntary, removal became mandatory whenever the federal government felt it necessary.

[Isome]

196. No doubt... but the precedent is there to refute objections to the claim.

Some Natives have received some compensation—

The U.S. government attempted to redress its past transgressions against Native Americans through reparations. Specifically, the United States paid monetary reparations to the Klamaths of Oregon, the Sioux of South Dakota, the Seminoles of Florida, the Chippewas of Wisconsin, and the Ottowas of Michigan. However, many tribes still have pending claims, including the Hopi’s claim against museums for housing Native American artifacts without reporting them to the specific tribes, and the Lenape’s claim for land and reparations from the city of Wildwood, New Jersey.

There's further precedent with the payment to DESCENDANTS of the Rosewood massacre in Florida—

In 1995, the State of Florida paid each of the nine survivors of the 1923 Rosewood Massacre $150,000, and paid each of the 145 descendants of residents between $375 and $22,535. ...

There aren't any legal barriers, that's indisputable. The only barriers remaining are the PRIDE & PREJUDICE of the "larger" community in America.

To use the logic of those who are vehemently opposed to reparations based on their "responsibility", I should ask: WHY AM I paying for reparations to Native Americans. My ancestors didn't even IMMIGRATE here? Oh' but I pay, and I feel neither punished nor outraged for having my tax money go towards attempting to right an EGREGIOUS wrong.

[Virginian]

210. Huh?

"To use the logic of those who are vehemently opposed to reparations based on their "responsibility", I should ask: WHY AM I paying for reparations to Native Americans. My ancestors didn't even IMMIGRATE here?"

Somebody must have.

[Isome]

212. No, no one immigrated here. Sorry to disappoint.

I'm not sorry really, it's just a figure of speech. We're direct descendants of Sally Hemmings, the slave concubine of Thomas Jefferson. There's no immigration in our family. Kidnapping and enslaving brought us here. How about you?

[Hypoxis]

165. I'm Hungarian. Where the hell are MY reparations?

In the 1890's, my great great grandfather moved to Pittsburgh from Hungary. Shortly thereafter, he went to work in the steel mills. If you'd heard the stories my grandmother has told about the daily beatings and humiliations meted out to Eastern European immigrants from the foremen during that period, it would bring tears to your eyes. The Poles were brutalized, but perhaps none more than the Hugarians who were considered the lowest of the low class. While its true blacks were slaves in that they were owned and weren't paid, my people might as well have been owned. They were beaten just as surely as any slaves, were paid a pittance, and lived in shacks that would rival any slave quarters. Besides that it can get as cold as hell in Pittsburgh and they had to live and work in filth, not southern fresh air.
So we can give descendents of black slaves reparations, all right. But after that, we'd better damn well take care of the Hungarians, then he Poles, then the Irish, the native Americans, and every other group who has been collectively mistreated during the history of America.

[sujan]

167. no

How do you propose to pay for those reparations? A reparation tax of some sort?



Then again, Why should I (an asian) pay for reparations?

[Isome]

174. Yes, a tax, tax break, etc.

Why did I, as a BLACK person, have to pay reparations to Japanese and Japanese-Americans? Why? Did I put them in camps, confiscate their property or benefit from the confiscation of their property. *boo hoo* Why did I have to be punished?

[SmokeyBlues]

190. The original reparation: Special Field Order #15

but even this was 'more than what they deserved' for some god-fearing people back then, maybe even including some black confederates. By the way, I hear people here on DU and elsewhere talk about the free Black folks in the antebellum South. Maybe I'm the one who doesn't understand, but just how free could a Black person be under the system of slavery?
--------------------------------------------------------------

On this day (January 12th) in 1865, in the midst of his 'March to the Sea' during the Civil War, General William T. Sherman and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton met with 20 Black community leaders of Savannah, Georgia. Based in part to their input, Gen. Sherman issued Special Field Order #15 on January 16, 1865, setting aside the Sea Islands and a 30 mile inland tract of land along the southern coast of Charleston for the exclusive settlement of Blacks. Each family would receive 40 acres of land and an army mule to work the land, thus "forty acres and a mule."

Gen. Rufus Saxton was assigned by Sherman to implement the Order. On a national level, this and other land, confiscated and abandoned, became the jurisdiction of the Freedman's Bureau, which was headed by Gen. Oliver Otis Howard (Howard University). In his words, he wanted to "...give the freedmen protection, land and schools as far and as fast as he can."

However, during the summer and fall of 1865, President Johnson issued special pardons, returning the property to the ex-Confederates. Howard issued Circular 13, giving 40 acres as quickly as possible. Upon his knowledge, Johnson ordered Howard to issue Circular 15, returning the land to the ex-Confederates.

[Yupster]

216. This is the origine of the 40 Acres and a mule expectation, but

General Sherman overstepped his bounds. Laws are not made by generals -- uh, oh -- I mean yet.

[_]

205. This sums the issue up quite appropriately.

No apologies... no reparations... deal with it.

(BTW... the cartoon is by Pat Oliphant; a well respected political satirist who won the Pulitizer Prize for his work),

[Isome]

208. Oh' Buck... that was the weakest of them all.

But your kind of weakness is effectively dealt with all the time.

[Name removed]

231. Deleted message

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

[HEyHEY]

207. No

The Irish were enslaved by the British at one time..... I'm not asking for any money.

That whole bit of history is terrible. But all those involved are now dead. If anything, there should be a fund to payout for injustice within the last 50 years seeing as how many would still be alive.

[Isome]

209. Hey hey ... HEyHEY...

You're more wrong than two left shoes! How much thought did you give to the idea of reparations to the Japanese or Natives (in this country)? Alot... alittle... none? But you're paying... I'm paying... and I know the Natives are ALL dead now. But I'm paying. But that never crossed anyone's mind, eh'?

It would be nice if people really did have informed opinions, instead of emotional reactions to logic.

[Name removed]

211. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

214. Deleted message

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

[HEyHEY]

215. Yes they have been paid

I'm saying I agree with that.
Natives are a different story, they are a people with land right in North America.
So I guess you are for the British paying Irish decendants?

EDIT: DO you think I'm a fucking idiot by the way...as if I don't know we are paying for shit like that. If that's all you have....

[Name removed]

219. Deleted message

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

[HEyHEY]

220. I dind't say I didn't know..stop assuming shit

I said "I'm not" asking for money..."I'm not" got it...wait let's try again "I'm not" there you must have it by now.

All you've done is group all the situations together, I guess all ethnic groups are the same to you. They all have different situations, timeframes, and consequences.

Where does it end? Let's pay everyone who's ever been fucked over in time. It's unfortunate it happened...all we can do is ensure it doesn't happen again and get on with it.

[HEyHEY]

221. and you know something else

You come on, claim I don't know something without asking, pretend it's a fact, and start ridiculing me for it...you made it all up!

[Name removed]

223. Deleted message

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

[Isome]

225. All you've done is group all the situations together...

And, you were only too happy to throw yourself into the group. Remember this:

"I said "I'm not" asking for money..."I'm not" got it...wait let's try again "I'm not" ..."

Apparently, it's acceptable to the argument for you to bring up your personal refusal to request reparations from Britain (*yeah*), but it's unacceptable for me to list some other ethnicities in America to which reparations have been (or are being) paid.

That's not only emotional, but it's not logical.

[Isome]

217. The Irish were enslaved by the British at one time...

That's a classic emotional response.

What does the American government have to do with your ancestors' enslavement at the hands of the British? Is this England? No, it's not! Is this Ireland? Nope, it's not that country either. It's AMERICA. Imagine that, you were just a tad bit confused about which country is responsible for which atrocities I suppose. Or, did you think that because YOUR people didn't ask for money from Britain as Americans citizen that had something to do with people of African descent being owed by the American government?

Oh' and GUESS WHAT? They HAVE asked for reparations because of deleterious British rule. Oh' my!

"As part of the settlement, the British government must accept the responsibility for providing financial support by agreeing by Treaty with the national government to provide economic subvention for an agreed period. Given the disastrous involvement of British rule in Ireland, reparations for an agreed period are the least contribution Britain could make to ensure an orderly transition to a national democracy and the harmonisation of the economies, North and South."

They're asking reparations for:

• Assault.
  
• Nuisance to the Irish people and their property.
  
• Trespass to the Irish people and their property.
  
• Negligence.
  
• Wrongful infliction of mental distress on the Irish people.
  
• Wrongful invasion of/or interference with the natural environment of Ireland.
  
• Breach of the precautionary principle and/or the principle that preventative action should be taken as regards the environment inherent in Article 13R of the Treaty of European Union.
  
• Exposing the Irish people to unnecessary and/or unreasonable risks.
  
• Breach of established principles of customary international law.
  
• Breach and/or invasion of the rights of the Irish people under the Constitution of Ireland.
  
• Breach and/or invasion of the rights of the Irish people under the Treaty of European Union.
  

Seems that the atrocities of governments have no "statute of limitations" that people care about, unless of course it's for the Middle Passage and Jim Crow.

[HEyHEY]

218. Have they been paid?

DO you realize we are not talking about the difference between the nations, but a principle?

Is it possible you are twisting this all around to suit your need to feel right? "oh my!"

By the way I'm not in the USA

[Isome]

222. You're not in the country at the moment? Or, are you not a U.S. citizen?

Which is it, because either you're lying or you're throwing out extraneous information about your location.

In this post you say:

HEyHEY (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-10-03 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #214

215. Yes they have been paid

Edited on Wed Dec-10-03 07:52 AM by HEyHEY
I'm saying I agree with that.
Natives are a different story, they are a people with land right in North America.
So I guess you are for the British paying Irish decendants?

EDIT: DO you think I'm a fucking idiot by the way...as if I don't know we are paying for shit like that. If that's all you have....

Then, in this post you say:

HEyHEY (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-10-03 08:01 AM Response to Reply #217

218. Have they been paid?

DO you realize we are not talking about the difference between the nations, but a principle?

Is it possible you are twisting this all around to suit your need to feel right? "oh my!"

By the way I'm not in the USA

[9215]

226. Bottom line is that ALL reparations have been paid.

So sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up if you can't deal with it .

[Isome]

229. Stop looking in the mirror as you post.

You seem to be taking yourself seriously when no one else does. That's evident by the fact that no one will sit down and shut up because you've opened up your cakehole to say so.

Now go apologize to your mother for calling her an asshole.

[Coldgothicwoman]

227. Yes.

Despite our best attempts in recent years to make up for the abuses of the past, one thing remains very constant: capitalism. The fruits of capitalistic work and endeavor from 200 years ago is still alive and well today in the 'Old Rich' families. Yet at the same time, slaves were denied the rights to the capital they helped produce (sadly, like most workers today, although they were entirely denied it) and hence did not have the opportunity to invest a few centuries of capital.

IMHO, that is one of the biggest reasons for the disparity in net income/net worth.

[Isome]

230. Johnny Cochran & Charles Ogletree agree with you!

So, too, do the attorney's representing the Japanese & Japanese-Americans.

[Moderator]

233. I am locking this thread.

It is inflammatory and has many personal attacks.



DU Moderator