NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you agree with the statement that black Americans should be compensated for slavery and its Jim Crow aftermath? I do not! Did slavery happen? Yes, it did!!! Am I sorry? Do I owe black Americans anything? The answer to both questions is...NO! I wasn't even born! Why would I apologize for something I took no part in and had absolutely nothing to do with? It seems that the United States is the only nation that can't seem to get over this stupidity known as racism and I blame the 'race pimps', Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton, whom, without the race card in the deck, would have no game!!!


Advocates who say black Americans should be compensated for slavery and its Jim Crow aftermath are quietly chalking up victories and gaining momentum.
Fueled by the work of scholars and lawyers, their campaign has morphed in recent years from a fringe-group rallying cry into sophisticated, mainstream movement. Most recently, a pair of churches apologized for their part in the slave trade, and one is studying ways to repay black church members.
The overall issue is hardly settled, even among black Americans: Some say that focusing on slavery shouldn't be a top priority or that it doesn't make sense to compensate people generations after a historical wrong.Yet reparations efforts have led a number of cities and states to approve measures that force businesses to publicize their historical ties to slavery. Several reparations court cases are in progress, and international human rights officials are increasingly spotlighting the issue.
"This matter is growing in significance rather than declining," said Charles Ogletree, a Harvard law professor and a leading reparations activist. "It has more vigor and vitality in the 21st century than it's had in the history of the reparations movement."
The most recent victories for reparations advocates came in June, when the Moravian Church and the Episcopal Church both apologized for owning slaves and promised to battle current racism. The Episcopalians also launched a national, yearslong probe into church slavery links and into whether the church should compensate black members. A white church member, Katrina Browne, also screened a documentary focusing on white culpability at the denomination's national assembly.
The Episcopalians debated slavery and reparations for years before reaching an agreement, said Jayne Oasin, social justice officer for the denomination, who will oversee its work on the issue.
Historically, slavery was an uncomfortable topic for the church. Some Episcopal bishops owned slaves — and the Bible was used to justify the practice, Oasin said.
"Why not (take these steps) 100 years ago?" she said. "Let's talk about the complicity of the Episcopal Church as one of the institutions of this country who, of course, benefited from slavery."
Also in June, a North Carolina commission urged the state government to repay the descendants of victims of a violent 1898 campaign by white supremacists to strip blacks of power in Wilmington, N.C. As many as 60 blacks died, and thousands were driven from the city.
The commission also recommended state-funded programs to support local black businesses and home ownership.
The report came weeks after the Organization of American States requested information from the U.S. government about a 1921 race riot in Tulsa, Okla., in which 1,200 homes were burned and as many as 300 blacks killed. An OAS official said the group might pursue the issue as a violation of international human rights.
The modern reparations movement revived an idea that's been around since emancipation, when black leaders argued that newly freed slaves deserved compensation.
About six years ago, the issue started gaining momentum again. Randall Robinson's "The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks," was a best seller; reparations became a central issue at the World Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa; and California legislators passed the nation's first law forcing insurance companies that do business with the state to disclose their slavery ties. Illinois passed a similar insurance law in 2003, and the next year Iowa legislators began requesting — but not forcing — the same disclosures.
Several cities — including Chicago, Detroit and Oakland — have laws requiring that all businesses make such disclosures.
Reparations opponents insist that no living American should have to pay for a practice that ended more than 140 years ago. Plus, programs such as affirmative action and welfare already have compensated for past injustices, said John H. McWhorter, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute.
"The reparations movement is based on a fallacy that cripples the thinking on race — the fallacy that what ails black America is a cash problem," said McWhorter, who is black. "Giving people money will not solve the problems that we have."
Even so, support is reaching beyond African-Americans and the South.
Katrina Browne, the white Episcopalian filmmaker, is finishing a documentary about her ancestors, the DeWolfs of Bristol, R.I., the biggest slave-trading family in U.S. history. She screened it for Episcopal Church officials at the June convention.
"Traces of the Trade: A Story From the Deep North," details how the economies of the Northeast and the nation as a whole depended on slaves.
"A lot of white people think they know everything there is to know about slavery — we all agree it was wrong and that's enough," Browne said. "But this was the foundation of our country, not some Southern anomaly. We all inherit responsibility."
She says neither whites nor blacks will heal from slavery until formal hearings expose the full history of slavery and its effects — an effort similar to South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission after apartheid collapsed.

No I don't cause there are millions of blacks here, it would be crazy, honestly, then again maybe the us goverment can do a Formal appology of words to them at the least.

People forget that slavery hurt allot of white people in the south too, Plus many white's ancestors weren't even in this country durring the period of slavery.

Do you agree with the statement that black Americans should be compensated for slavery and its Jim Crow aftermath? I do not! Did slavery happen? Yes, it did!!! Am I sorry? Do I owe black Americans anything? The answer to both questions is...NO! I wasn't even born! Why would I apologize for something I took no part in and had absolutely nothing to do with? It seems that the United States is the only nation that can't seem to get over this stupidity known as racism and I blame the 'race pimps', Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton, whom, without the race card in the deck, would have no game!!!

HEAR HEAR!!!

Don't think we need to pay reparations any more than the English need to pay reparations to the Irish. Why? The people who are now alive were not responsible for slavery. The people who are alive now were never slaves. Americans are not the only ones responsible for slavery in the US. English and Spanish ships also brought slaves to America; Africans sold other Africans into slavery. No, reparations are not needed or appropriate.

NO!
It's over with. Get over it. Not a person living today was EVER a slave in the US. Few people living today had idyllic childhoods with every opportunity for success and happiness. They are still happy and successful. Black Americans weren't (and AREN"T) the only people to be "injured" in some way by some policy or practice of the Government of the US of A.

The "US" government doesn't owe any one anything for what their ancestors may or may not have "suffered".

Ironically, it wouldn't be just the tax dollars of "white" US taxPAYERS that would go to fund this outragous absurdity.

We can't reward whiners. There will be no end to it because everyone can conjure up some personal injustice on which to hang their (pseudo-)entitlements.

1. Most white Americans, even Southerners, didn't own any slaves. My family came from Russia/England during the 1890's and settled in Pennsylvania. No slaveholding there.

2. None of the blacks alive today have ever been enslaved; unlike Holocaust victims, there are no slaves alive today and no slaveholders alive today that can be forced to pay the slaves reparations.

3. What about the blacks who willingly helped the slavers, or the Muslim rulers that also enslaved Africans? What about the people who owned slaves in Europe or Asia? What about slaves who wern't African but came from Asia or the Middle East?

Therefore, the notion of reparations is unfair and discriminatory; I shouldn't have to pay others simply because of the color of my skin. If I recall correctly, that's nothing more than racism!

As soon as any person, black or otherwise, shows me who it was that enslaved them personally, I would do everything in my power to make sure the enslaver pay the enslavee for actual and punitive damages.

The thing is, blacks only got the opportunity to ask for compensation recently. They used to be too busy doing stuff like, oh, you know, getting equal education and voting rights!

Plus many white's ancestors weren't even in this country durring the period of slavery.

And even if they were in the country, many of them lived in states where slavery was illegal. My ancestor who came over here came as a Hessian soldier to fight against the Americans in the Revolution. After the war he settled in Ohio and then the family moved up here to Michigan about a hundred years later. My family even fought for Ohio in the Civil War.

If America is going to pay anyone, then at least pay the Vietnamese. Of all in the Vietnamese war who were hurt in America's chemical attack, the vietnamese weren't, and thsi damage was lasting physically.

And even if they were in the country, many of them lived in states where slavery was illegal. My ancestor who came over here came as a Hessian soldier to fight against the Americans in the Revolution. After the war he settled in Ohio and then the family moved up here to Michigan about a hundred years later. My family even fought for Ohio in the Civil War.

Also, most people even in slaveholding regions couldn't afford slaves. In the South it was something like 75% of Southerners didn't own any slaves, and of the remaining 25% only a small fraction owned more than 2 or 3.

Every decent man in the world has the responsibility to abandon racism and fight it, if possible.

I see that as a reason to not favor anyone because of the color of their skin or their racial heritage.

It's like me suing somebody because his great great great grandfather killed my great great great grandfather. What's the point? None of the slaves or slavemasters are still alive. We have no living victims to compensate or suspects to prosecute.

If the slaves of the South had white skin instead of dark, slave reparations would never be talked about. The whole thing reeks of racism to me.

No I don't cause there are millions of blacks here, it would be crazy, honestly, then again maybe the us goverment can do a Formal appology of words to them at the least.

I'm surprised that this poll is not the other way around.

Throw out the poll because of confusing wording.

African-Americans deserve full reparations because obviously they have not recovered from the crime of slavery yet. They deserve the full 40 acres and a mule that was promised by Abraham Lincoln, adjusted for inflation.

No I don't cause there are millions of blacks here, it would be crazy, honestly, then again maybe the us goverment can do a Formal appology of words to them at the least.
That formal apology was made by hundreds of thousands of Federal soldiers between the years of 1861-1865.

If my dead father had been a murderer, I would not expect the victims to have me punished in his place. Neither do I expect the Americans of today to pay the African-Americans of today for the misdeeds done by their ancestors.

Do you agree with the statement that black Americans should be compensated for slavery and its Jim Crow aftermath? I do not! Did slavery happen? Yes, it did!!! Am I sorry? Do I owe black Americans anything? The answer to both questions is...NO! I wasn't even born! Why would I apologize for something I took no part in and had absolutely nothing to do with? It seems that the United States is the only nation that can't seem to get over this stupidity known as racism and I blame the 'race pimps', Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton, whom, without the race card in the deck, would have no game!!!


Advocates who say black Americans should be compensated for slavery and its Jim Crow aftermath are quietly chalking up victories and gaining momentum.
Fueled by the work of scholars and lawyers, their campaign has morphed in recent years from a fringe-group rallying cry into sophisticated, mainstream movement. Most recently, a pair of churches apologized for their part in the slave trade, and one is studying ways to repay black church members.
The overall issue is hardly settled, even among black Americans: Some say that focusing on slavery shouldn't be a top priority or that it doesn't make sense to compensate people generations after a historical wrong.Yet reparations efforts have led a number of cities and states to approve measures that force businesses to publicize their historical ties to slavery. Several reparations court cases are in progress, and international human rights officials are increasingly spotlighting the issue.
"This matter is growing in significance rather than declining," said Charles Ogletree, a Harvard law professor and a leading reparations activist. "It has more vigor and vitality in the 21st century than it's had in the history of the reparations movement."
The most recent victories for reparations advocates came in June, when the Moravian Church and the Episcopal Church both apologized for owning slaves and promised to battle current racism. The Episcopalians also launched a national, yearslong probe into church slavery links and into whether the church should compensate black members. A white church member, Katrina Browne, also screened a documentary focusing on white culpability at the denomination's national assembly.
The Episcopalians debated slavery and reparations for years before reaching an agreement, said Jayne Oasin, social justice officer for the denomination, who will oversee its work on the issue.
Historically, slavery was an uncomfortable topic for the church. Some Episcopal bishops owned slaves — and the Bible was used to justify the practice, Oasin said.
"Why not (take these steps) 100 years ago?" she said. "Let's talk about the complicity of the Episcopal Church as one of the institutions of this country who, of course, benefited from slavery."
Also in June, a North Carolina commission urged the state government to repay the descendants of victims of a violent 1898 campaign by white supremacists to strip blacks of power in Wilmington, N.C. As many as 60 blacks died, and thousands were driven from the city.
The commission also recommended state-funded programs to support local black businesses and home ownership.
The report came weeks after the Organization of American States requested information from the U.S. government about a 1921 race riot in Tulsa, Okla., in which 1,200 homes were burned and as many as 300 blacks killed. An OAS official said the group might pursue the issue as a violation of international human rights.
The modern reparations movement revived an idea that's been around since emancipation, when black leaders argued that newly freed slaves deserved compensation.
About six years ago, the issue started gaining momentum again. Randall Robinson's "The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks," was a best seller; reparations became a central issue at the World Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa; and California legislators passed the nation's first law forcing insurance companies that do business with the state to disclose their slavery ties. Illinois passed a similar insurance law in 2003, and the next year Iowa legislators began requesting — but not forcing — the same disclosures.
Several cities — including Chicago, Detroit and Oakland — have laws requiring that all businesses make such disclosures.
Reparations opponents insist that no living American should have to pay for a practice that ended more than 140 years ago. Plus, programs such as affirmative action and welfare already have compensated for past injustices, said John H. McWhorter, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute.
"The reparations movement is based on a fallacy that cripples the thinking on race — the fallacy that what ails black America is a cash problem," said McWhorter, who is black. "Giving people money will not solve the problems that we have."
Even so, support is reaching beyond African-Americans and the South.
Katrina Browne, the white Episcopalian filmmaker, is finishing a documentary about her ancestors, the DeWolfs of Bristol, R.I., the biggest slave-trading family in U.S. history. She screened it for Episcopal Church officials at the June convention.
"Traces of the Trade: A Story From the Deep North," details how the economies of the Northeast and the nation as a whole depended on slaves.
"A lot of white people think they know everything there is to know about slavery — we all agree it was wrong and that's enough," Browne said. "But this was the foundation of our country, not some Southern anomaly. We all inherit responsibility."
She says neither whites nor blacks will heal from slavery until formal hearings expose the full history of slavery and its effects — an effort similar to South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission after apartheid collapsed.
Slavery reperation is stupid. It's over, get over it. Slavery is bad, doesn't mean we should have to pay for it. None of my family was in the US when the US had slaves. These argument give people like Don Black and Stormfront legitimacy.

Why dont you add more options like "I think blacks are stupid" or "we should enslave white people instead!"?

Don't think we need to pay reparations any more than the English need to pay reparations to the Irish. Why? The people who are now alive were not responsible for slavery. The people who are alive now were never slaves. Americans are not the only ones responsible for slavery in the US. English and Spanish ships also brought slaves to America; Africans sold other Africans into slavery. No, reparations are not needed or appropriate.

The US government was, however, responsible for about 80 years worth of slavery in the US.

The US government was, however, responsible for about 80 years worth of slavery in the US.

I think that you will find that the individual State's governments were responsible for the laws regulating slavery and not the U.S. government.

I think that you will find that the individual State's governments were responsible for the laws regulating slavery and not the U.S. government.

I imagine it was a shared responsibility. I do believe all of those states still exist today, as well.

I'm surprised that this poll is not the other way around.

Throw out the poll because of confusing wording.

African-Americans deserve full reparations because obviously they have not recovered from the crime of slavery yet. They deserve the full 40 acres and a mule that was promised by Abraham Lincoln, adjusted for inflation.

And to this, I say:

"The reparations movement is based on a fallacy that cripples the thinking on race — the fallacy that what ails black America is a cash problem," said McWhorter, who is black. "Giving people money will not solve the problems that we have."

And to this, I say:

"The reparations movement is based on a fallacy that cripples the thinking on race — the fallacy that what ails black America is a cash problem," said McWhorter, who is black. "Giving people money will not solve the problems that we have."

Amen to that. Besides I think the goverment has paid much in the way of reparations already, it's called Welfare.

FullMetalJacket']Amen to that. Besides I think the goverment has paid much in the way of reparations already, it's called Welfare.

Oh snap!

I live in the Minnesota. My family lives in the upper mid-west. The North. Why should I have to pay for what some southerners were doing 200 years ago?

I imagine it was a shared responsibility. I do believe all of those states still exist today, as well.

Yes and if you believe that government is responsible perhaps you should blame the actual responsible State governments and not the US federal government. The federal government limited and eventually ended the slavery endorsed and embraced by some (and not all) States.

If you are looking for those to blame and pay perhaps you should look for guilty parties rather than easy targets.

I imagine it was a shared responsibility. I do believe all of those states still exist today, as well.
How's this: you can pay for slavery reparations from your own pocket, and we can not waste taxpayer's money.

The same situation is happening up here in Canada regarding the Chinese head-tax of the early 1900's. And of course, they want compensation too. I say, bollocks to that.

That formal apology was made by hundreds of thousands of Federal soldiers between the years of 1861-1865.
Yeh, cause that was about slavery:rolleyes:

Liasia']Yeh, cause that was about slavery:rolleyes:
Well, slavery was a factor, and the abolition of it on the federal level was the spark that triggered the war, so yes, I'd say it was.

Well, slavery was a factor, and the abolition of it on the federal level was the spark that triggered the war, so yes, I'd say it was.
Really? I'd say it was about the US not wanting to let half of itself seperate, thereby weakening the whole. But justify it any way you like dude.

One of the most interesting things I remember from a high school history class was the terrible treatment of the Irish in comparison to slaves. Slaves were expensive, and therefore couldn't be used in dangerous work such as mining. The Irish, however, were used as quasi-canaries, because they came much cheaper.

I stopped caring about reparations after that. That's not to say that slavery wasn't a horrible, horrible institution. It was indeed horrible, but poor whites were hurt a great deal by slavery. While the rich southern aristocrats grew fat off of slave labor, poor unemployed whites struggled to survive.

OK, another thing about the following statement:

Originally Posted by Conscience and Truth
I'm surprised that this poll is not the other way around.

Throw out the poll because of confusing wording.

How, exactly, is the wording confusing? Either YES, you agree that reparations are owed and should be paid to black Americans or NO, you do not agree that black Americans are entitled to reparations! Where's the confusion?

Another thing I've noticed is that out of the eight (8) people who do agree, only one offered an explanation as to why! :confused:

African-Americans deserve full reparations because obviously they have not recovered from the crime of slavery yet. They deserve the full 40 acres and a mule that was promised by Abraham Lincoln, adjusted for inflation.

Ole Abe didn't promise them crap. Sorry to break your illusion there. It was one of Union General Sherman's subordinates who started that, and was slapped down by Lincoln.

Do you agree with the statement that black Americans should be compensated for slavery and its Jim Crow aftermath?"Compensation"? What's this about compensation?

I have heard many people argue for reparations for slavery... but compensation? Who is making this argument?

What would that even mean?

Reparations makes sense. Root = "repair." Do I think we have a moral and political duty to repair the damage caused by slavery? Yes, I do. It is not enough to "free" the slaves, nor even to remove formal legal barriers to the advancement of their black descendants. It was never enough.

Slavery is not over until the last vestiges of its legacy have been wiped away.

That's reparations... and considering that providing cash hand-outs to black people is not likely to repair much of anything, no serious advocate of reparations would advocate such a thing. Rather, we advocate responsible affirmative action policies and community development programs. We advocate policies that promote real, substantive equality for people of all races.

"Compensation"? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Why should I have to pay for what some southerners were doing 200 years ago?Well, I could name a whole list of reasons... but I think it's helpful to start with the same reasons that you pay for the financial losses of people whose ancestors decided to settle in the path of hurricanes.

At some point, we decided that we are--on the scale of the United States--one nation. We are one nation at war, and we are one nation at peace.

We all benefit from the advancement of each... and we each pay for the mistakes of all.

That's what it means to be United States. It's a little late to start changing the rules.

I will pay reparations to the blacks as soon as the Germans, Russians, British, and Dutch pay me reparations for what they did to my ancestors.

I will pay reparations to the blacks as soon as the Germans, Russians, British, and Dutch pay me reparations for what they did to my ancestors.When you can reasonably demonstrate that the Germans, Russians, British, and Dutch are largely responsible for your current state--degraded and poor as it must be, if it needs reparation--then perhaps you will have a case that there is some damage they should repair.

Yes and if you believe that government is responsible perhaps you should blame the actual responsible State governments and not the US federal government. The federal government limited and eventually ended the slavery endorsed and embraced by some (and not all) States.

If you are looking for those to blame and pay perhaps you should look for guilty parties rather than easy targets.

When I initially made the comment I swept up the state governments into the US Government, as they are a portion of the whole. You are also right that the main proponents of slavery persisted within the representative bodies of the southern states. However, those representatives also played a role in shaping the policy of the Federal government. And that is the thing with democracy, everyone is responsible for the outcome, not just those who were bad apples.

We all benefit from the advancement of each... and we each pay for the mistakes of all.

That's what it means to be United States. It's a little late to start changing the rules.

That's what it means to be a democracy.

Well, I could name a whole list of reasons... but I think it's helpful to start with the same reasons that you pay for the financial losses of people whose ancestors decided to settle in the path of hurricanes.

At some point, we decided that we are--on the scale of the United States--one nation. We are one nation at war, and we are one nation at peace.

We all benefit from the advancement of each... and we each pay for the mistakes of all.

That's what it means to be United States. It's a little late to start changing the rules.
But traditionally the benefiting and payment was handled by the free market system not some overbearing government trying to redistribute wealth.

How's this: you can pay for slavery reparations from your own pocket, and we can not waste taxpayer's money.

The same situation is happening up here in Canada regarding the Chinese head-tax of the early 1900's. And of course, they want compensation too. I say, bollocks to that.

I didn't allow and condone the slave trade, the various levels of governments within the US (happy not bad?) allowed and condoned the slave trade.

We do have a government, however, that is representative of the people, and when the government screws up, the people have screwed up. We can't pick and choose when we are responsible for our own government, and in this situation we need to own up.

But traditionally the benefiting and payment was handled by the free market system not some overbearing government trying to redistribute wealth.

That isn't much solace to a group of people who were widely considered inferior for the entire time they were trying to get some bit of equality.

What good is the free market when the free market thinks you are only good (not actually that good) for manual labor?

"repair" and "reparation" are indeed from the same latin root "reparatio," but have been seperate words since Middle English. They certainly are not the same thing.

German reparations after WW1 were voluntary, as part of the armistice they signed. Likewise Japanese reparations to China and Swiss to Holocaust victims. So from that, I'd suggest to anyone who feels personally sorry, or guilty about where their family's money came from: nothing's stopping you. Track down the descendent's of your family's slaves, send 'em some money. I'm sure they'd be grateful, even if they're living high on the hog already!

"Compensation"? What's this about compensation?

I have heard many people argue for reparations for slavery... but compensation? Who is making this argument?

What would that even mean?

Reparations makes sense. Root = "repair." Do I think we have a moral and political duty to repair the damage caused by slavery? Yes, I do. It is not enough to "free" the slaves, nor even to remove formal legal barriers to the advancement of their black descendants. It was never enough.

Slavery is not over until the last vestiges of its legacy have been wiped away.

That's reparations... and considering that providing cash hand-outs to black people is not likely to repair much of anything, no serious advocate of reparations would advocate such a thing. Rather, we advocate responsible affirmative action policies and community development programs. We advocate policies that promote real, substantive equality for people of all races.

"Compensation"? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Why the personal attack? You have no idea what I'm talking about? The statement in question is the opening statement in the article I attached! So, if you want to question someone, question ERIN TEXEIRA, AP National Writer!

Let's demand reparations from the assyrians, minoans, romans and huns as well... slavery has been (and still is) a shifting problem, as a matter of fact, everyone is guilty, hence no one should be forced to pay.

Let's demand reparations from the assyrians, minoans, romans and huns as well... slavery has been (and still is) a shifting problem, as a matter of fact, everyone is guilty, hence no one should be forced to pay.

Contact their governments and get some lawyers on the case.

I will pay reparations to the blacks as soon as the Germans, Russians, British, and Dutch pay me reparations for what they did to my ancestors.

I'm still waiting for the Germans to pay us back for what they did to my ancestors in WWI, WWII, and I'm still waiting for the French to pay us back for the Napoleonic wars and the Hundred Years War.

Contact their governments and get some lawyers on the case.
That or we all be reasonable and realize no one alive today had anything to do with any of the decisions made and move on from this point

When I initially made the comment I swept up the state governments into the US Government, as they are a portion of the whole. You are also right that the main proponents of slavery persisted within the representative bodies of the southern states. However, those representatives also played a role in shaping the policy of the Federal government. And that is the thing with democracy, everyone is responsible for the outcome, not just those who were bad apples.

Again the federal government's policy was never pro slavery. The first active stance and action the federal government took on slavery was to limit it. The federal government never adopted nor addressed the issue of slavery except to limit and later to end it. Those who wish reparations from the federal government wish to gain reparations from the body which ENDED slavery rather than those bodies which embraced and encouraged slavery.

That or we all be reasonable and realize no one alive today had anything to do with any of the decisions made and move on from this point

Well that was sort of my point.

EDIT: But remember that the US government still exists today and is still responsible for its actions in the past.

That or we all be reasonable and realize no one alive today had anything to do with any of the decisions made and move on from this pointThat's a very convenient concept of debt.

If we just hold out long enough, no one has to pay?

I don't suppose you'd be willing to extend the same courtesy to my parents, who will soon shoulder the responsibility of paying off my grandmother's debts? Neither of them had anything to do with the decisions she made... so perhaps we can all just move on from this point?

Somehow I don't think the bank will agree to that little twist of reason... but then again, the bank--very unlike the black descendants of slaves--is actually in a position to do something about it.

Again the federal government's policy was never pro slavery. The first active stance and action the federal government took on slavery was to limit it. The federal government never adopted nor addressed the issue of slavery except to limit and later to end it. Those who wish reparations from the federal government wish to gain reparations from the body which ENDED slavery rather than those bodies which embraced and encouraged slavery.

There would have been no slavery if the federal government had not allowed it.

Yay for repressed hatred of Black people!:)

There would have been no slavery if the federal government had not allowed it.

That is incorrect. There would have been no slavery in any State which did not allow it.

Before the civil war incividual States had far more power and ability to self govern than they do now. The federal government had far less power and influence over each State than it does now.

Well that was sort of my point.

EDIT: But remember that the US government still exists today and is still responsible for its actions in the past.
Hmm and here I thought it was up to the state governments before the separation

There would have been no slavery if the federal government had not allowed it.

Great basis for a class-action suit. By that logic, the families of murder victims should get a few million dollars each, straight from the incompetent government which allowed the crime to be committed. When the government goes broke, it's time for that old "40 acres and a mule" idea, until those run out too.

Well that was sort of my point.

EDIT: But remember that the US government still exists today and is still responsible for its actions in the past.

The various State governments still exist as well.

The various State governments still exist as well.
Yup and me and my entire family have lived in minnesota our entire history in the usa (And I believe it was illegal in minnesota to own slaves)

USA is so fucked. Better pay up while you still can.

Yup and me and my entire family have lived in minnesota our entire history in the usa (And I believe it was illegal in minnesota to own slaves)

Same here in California.

The various State governments still exist as well.

Yes, and all of the people in that government and the people who elected them all owned slaves and were all alive at the time of slavery and so were directly involved in it. I forgot that my family somehow went back in time to own slaves despite living in Pennsylvania after immigrating from Russia and England 30 years after the slaves were freed by the 13th Amendment.

If a reparations bill had been passed during the 5 years my parents lived in North Carolina (and where I was born) does that mean I would have to pay reparations by this logic? :eek:

That is incorrect. There would have been no slavery in any State which did not allow it.

Before the civil war incividual States had far more power and ability to self govern than they do now. The federal government had far less power and influence over each State than it does now.

No, both are true statements. The federal government did not wait until the civil war to start protecting people's rights from the States.

USA is so fucked. Better pay up while you still can.

Or else what?

Or else what?
Or you'll go flat broke when you finally do get around to taking care of this unfinished business.

Great basis for a class-action suit. By that logic, the families of murder victims should get a few million dollars each, straight from the incompetent government which allowed the crime to be committed. When the government goes broke, it's time for that old "40 acres and a mule" idea, until those run out too.

If you can prove that the government was negligent in its duty to protect you and your rights, you probably will be compensated.

I wonder whether super-successful African-Americans like Bill Cosby and Oprah Winfrey (and many more) would be insulted by the offer of restitutional payments. If they got them, they would certainly give them all to charities, if they accepted them at all. Another interesting question is how many white people would find black ancestors a few generations back in their family trees and ask to be part of the program?

Hmm and here I thought it was up to the state governments before the separation

And the federal government had a duty to protect the people from the state governments. What do you say about the Bill of Rights?

compensation is bullshit, and so is affirmitive action. its reverse rascism.

No, both are true statements. The federal government did not wait until the civil war to start protecting people's rights from the States.

Surely you dont mean the 11th and 12th amendments to the constitution?

compensation is bullshit, and so is affirmitive action. its reverse rascism.
What exactly is “Reverse” racism … that makes no sense it IS racism (for better or worse)

Such a stupid term

And the federal government had a duty to protect the people from the state governments. What do you say about the Bill of Rights?

Im for the first ten amendments. Quite nice really.

The various State governments still exist as well.

We've been over that.

When I say United States Government, I mean the various levels of government.

The states determined whether they would be slave holding states, but they would not have had that ability if the federal government had upheld its end of the bargain.

And considering that most of those states that maintained slavery are already half-funded by the federal government, it seems like the federal government would be footing the bill regardless.

What exactly is “Reverse” racism … that makes no sense it IS racism (for better or worse)

Such a stupid term

That is a phrase that I believe Stokely Carmichael coined. I can give you a link to a recording of a speech in which he uses it and takes credit if you like.

We've been over that.

When I say United States Government, I mean the various levels of government.

The states determined whether they would be slave holding states, but they would not have had that ability if the federal government had upheld its end of the bargain.

And considering that most of those states that maintained slavery are already half-funded by the federal government, it seems like the federal government would be footing the bill regardless.
And what of all the people who immigrate here after the end of slavery? Should they be punished economically for the mistakes that not only did they not have part in but no one in the history of their family as well?

Im for the first ten amendments. Quite nice really.

And did it not hold precedent over the policy of the individual states?

That is a phrase that I believe Stokely Carmichael coined. I can give you a link to a recording of a speech in which he uses it and takes credit if you like.
That does not help prove or disprove my point that it is a stupid term in its very essence lol

And considering that most of those states that maintained slavery are already half-funded by the federal government, it seems like the federal government would be footing the bill regardless.

But how would we determine who pays? Would it be a special tax levied based upon the color of your skin?

And what of all the people who immigrate here after the end of slavery? Should they be punished economically for the mistakes that not only did they not have part in but no one in the history of their family as well?

Thats the problem blessing of democracy, you are responsible for the government. Its mistakes are your mistakes.

Thats the problem blessing of democracy, you are responsible for the government. Its mistakes are your mistakes.

Nothing like punishing the children for the sins of their father...

But how would we determine who pays? Would it be a special tax levied based upon the color of your skin?

I wouldn't actually support reparations because it solves nothing and is almost logistically impossible.

But I hate the argument "But I never owned slaves, why should I pay?"

We've been over that.

When I say United States Government, I mean the various levels of government.

The states determined whether they would be slave holding states, but they would not have had that ability if the federal government had upheld its end of the bargain.



The federal government's end of the bargain was to specifically let the States self govern. That is how they managed to get the 13 colonies to sign onto the declaration of independence. Without individual State self rule there would never have been a United States of America. The very name State means autonomous self rule. Weve already been over this.

Addressing the question of whether the federal government or the state governments were fundamentally responsible for slavery...

1) I think this discussion is beside the point, both ethically and politically. But for the moment, at least, I'll hold back on this argument.

2) At least several points have been missed with respect to federal complicity with slavery.

In the first place, the discussion lacks a serious appraisal of the obligations implied by union. Non-slaveholding states agreed to very strong federal union with slaveholding states. They gained all the military and economic advantages of union with the South--advantages that included, in effect, several generations of blood money.

Almost certainly, union would not have been possible without the compromises made with respect to slavery. Still, we should not lose sight of the fact that Northern states were fully aware of the economic/social situation in the South, and the fact of political union includes some form of collective responsibility.

Apparently some people believe that political union is a costless arrangment.




Perhaps more to the point, the North actively cooperated in numerous ways, including the enforcement of various fugitive slave laws.



Again, I think that given a proper understanding of political association and federalism, this is largely beside the point. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten.

Nothing like punishing the children for the sins of their father...

There has only been one governing body of the US for quite some time. There was no transition of government where responsibility was lost.

The issue I see with it, is that it'd awfully difficult to prove who is of slave descent and who is of immigrant African descent.

USA is so fucked. Better pay up while you still can.

Gonna come convince me otherwise? :D


Seriously, this is the same crap that keeps said people down. The problem is they have been either A, raised to expect that whites owe them something. B, raised to hate whitey all together. Or C, being raised unguided so they form thier own resentment. It sucks what happened (slavery) further it sucks the situation some are born into. However, this stuff keeps a divide open that shouldn't even be a divide. However, the attitude is keeping them from improving themselves as a community and individuals. Bottom line is get over it, better themselves and realize everyone is not against them.

That does not help prove or disprove my point that it is a stupid term in its very essence lol

It also did NOT always mean what the poster who brought up the term thinks it means. It's a scary concept actually.

I wouldn't actually support reparations because it solves nothing and is almost logistically impossible.Not to be trite, but reparations that solve nothing are not really reparations at all.

Those of us who support reparations are generally of the mind that we should figure out what works (to repair the damage caused by slavery and racism)... and whatever it is, do that.

Opponents of reparations, on the contrary, believe that we should pretend that nothing ever happened.

But I hate the argument "But I never owned slaves, why should I pay?"Here we certainly agree. :)

On that note, I personally neither repressed nor attacked the Iraqi people... so why the hell am I paying to repair that damage?

Collective benefits come with collective costs. This is the very first principle of political association.

There has only been one governing body of the US for quite some time. There was no transition of government where responsibility was lost.

But there was a transition of the people comprising it and paying in to it. It makes no sense to punish people who had nothing to do with the crime just because they are part of the same organization that committed that crime in the past. That would be like arresting the Teamsters' boss because his predecessor had ties to the Mafia.

For example, the Catholic Church has existed without transition of government but no one demands reparations for atrocities committed during the Thirty Year's War, the Inquisition or any of the other atrocities committed by the Church in the past.

Gonna come convince me otherwise? :D
Nope. I was just saying.

The issue I see with it, is that it'd awfully difficult to prove who is of slave descent and who is of immigrant African descent.Who needs to?

All we need to do is figure out how to reduce the legacy of slavery and racism, such that being born black does not in and of itself count as a very real handicap in the game of life.

"Reparations" is really about acknowledging that race still counts for a hell of a lot in this country, and admitting that this is a situation we have a responsibility to correct.

The anti-reparations argument is really about shutting our eyes to reality.

The federal government's end of the bargain was to specifically let the States self govern. That is how they managed to get the 13 colonies to sign onto the declaration of independence. Without individual State self rule there would never have been a United States of America. The very name State means autonomous self rule. Weve already been over this.

Actually the Articles of Confederation did not work for the US because of its primacy of "individual State self rule." The Constitution established a much more powerful central government. One that did take precedent over the states in necessary situations (and perhaps unnecessary situations).

Seriously, this is the same crap that keeps said people down. The problem is they have been either A, raised to expect that whites owe them something. B, raised to hate whitey all together. Or C, being raised unguided so they form thier own resentment. It sucks what happened (slavery) further it sucks the situation some are born into. However, this stuff keeps a divide open that shouldn't even be a divide. However, the attitude is keeping them from improving themselves as a community and individuals. Bottom line is get over it, better themselves and realize everyone is not against them.

We've all heard that rhetoric before. But where is your evidence?

All of the empirical research I have ever seen demonstrates fairly conclusively that ignoring the problem does NOT make it go away. Moreover, studies of affirmative action programs have shown that they significantly increase not only the minority admissions to colleges and universities, but also their graduation rates, employability, and earning power.

Funny thing: like virtually every other problem in the world, this one seems to go away faster when people actually try to fix it. :rolleyes:

Not to be trite, but reparations that solve nothing are not really reparations at all.

Those of us who support reparations are generally of the mind that we should figure out what works (to repair the damage caused by slavery and racism)... and whatever it is, do that.

Opponents of reparations, on the contrary, believe that we should pretend that nothing ever happened.

I guess I should say that I am suspicious of any plan to institute reparations.

I also don't really think that reparations should be made for racism per se, just when policy reflected it.

But there was a transition of the people comprising it and paying in to it. It makes no sense to punish people who had nothing to do with the crime just because they are part of the same organization that committed that crime in the past. That would be like arresting the Teamsters' boss because his predecessor had ties to the Mafia.

For example, the Catholic Church has existed without transition of government but no one demands reparations for atrocities committed during the Thirty Year's War, the Inquisition or any of the other atrocities committed by the Church in the past.

The people aren't getting punished directly (neither is the government, really), the government is righting the wrongs it made in the past. Unfortunately for you, your tax dollars fund the government.

But there was a transition of the people comprising it and paying in to it. It makes no sense to punish people who had nothing to do with the crime just because they are part of the same organization that committed that crime in the past.No one is "punishing" anyone.

Rather, we are insisting that people pay the costs to repair damages caused by an organization to which they belong.

If a company owes a debt, they should keep paying on it until it is paid off, right? Even if, in the interim, every single share has changed hands... right?

For example, the Catholic Church has existed without transition of government but no one demands reparations for atrocities committed during the Thirty Year's War, the Inquisition or any of the other atrocities committed by the Church in the past.Well, tell us what needs to be repaired, and perhaps we will insist that they repair it.

Funny thing: like virtually every other problem in the world, this one seems to go away faster when people actually try to fix it.

that's fucking crazy talk man.

The people aren't getting punished directly (neither is the government, really), the government is righting the wrongs it made in the past. Unfortunately for you, your tax dollars fund the government.

So blacks would pay for their own reparations? I don't think that would go over very well especially considering that it's the equivalent of making the victim in a civil case pay for part of their settlement Not to mention it's also massively unfair to people who had nothing to do with the crime in the first place. That's like having to serve jail time just because your father was a criminal.

We haven't even gotten started on determining how the money is distributed and the amount they deserve for slavery.

I also don't really think that reparations should be made for racism per se, just when policy reflected it.Ah, but the historical evidence shows that racism itself is the result of public policies and economic choices.

A thousand years ago, the concept of "race" as we know it did not exist... Even five-hundred years ago you would be hard pressed to find a person who believed that another person was inherently inferior on the sole basis of an immutable biological characteristic.

Slavery is not the result of racism. Rather, modern racism was the justification for black slavery.

In other words, racism is a part of the harm that needs to be repaired.

Not to mention it's also massively unfair to people who had nothing to do with the crime in the first place. That's like having to serve jail time just because your father was a criminal.

no, it is rather more like new owners of a company having to pay for debts created under the old owners. in fact, it is exactly like that.

FullMetalJacket']Amen to that. Besides I think the goverment has paid much in the way of reparations already, it's called Welfare.
Well, actually a majority of Welfare recipients are White. I don't agree with "reparations" either, but that doesn't mean we need to scapegoat African-Americans for the failures of the U.S. Social Welfare system.

So blacks would pay for their own reparations? I don't think that would go over very well especially considering that it's the equivalent of making the victim in a civil case pay for part of their settlement Not to mention it's also massively unfair to people who had nothing to do with the crime in the first place. That's like having to serve jail time just because your father was a criminal.

We haven't even gotten started on determining how the money is distributed and the amount they deserve for slavery.

This is the line of thinking that muddies the argument in the first place.

This isn't individual compensation, this is rectifying the situation. We aren't talking about taxing all white people and then handing out a check to every black person.

No one is "punishing" anyone.

Rather, we are insisting that people pay the costs to repair damages caused by an organization to which they belong.

If a company owes a debt, they should keep paying on it until it is paid off, right? Even if, in the interim, every single share has changed hands... right?

The company's debt is paid at the time it is due, not 141 years after the fact.
Furthermore, the debt is paid for by the sale of the stock itself and not years in the future; there is no similarity between the two.

Were it 1865 and the victims of slavery still alive and verifiable, it would be different; now you're doing nothing more than making the innocent pay for the crimes of their ancestors. That's no different that imprisoning the son because his father committed a crime that was never punished.

Paying reparations is a great way to get something behind you. Had England Europe and the US paid reparations to China after getting the people hooked on opium, we probably wouldn't be borrowing money from them so that we can buy their cheaply made goods at the wal-marts today. The US did pay reparations to Japanese WWII internees, by the way. And now look how good American cars are compared to how they were when Ronald Reagan was prez. Reparations are a good way to make up for screwing someone over, I know that if I get reparations for my anestors the first thing I would do with the money is not spend it on fireworks!

Ah, but the historical evidence shows that racism itself is the result of public policies and economic choices.

A thousand years ago, the concept of "race" as we know it did not exist... Even five-hundred years ago you would be hard pressed to find a person who believed that another person was inherently inferior on the sole basis of an immutable biological characteristic.

Slavery is not the result of racism. Rather, modern racism was the justification for black slavery.

I understood where I was wrong from the first sentence, probably before I even finished it.

The trend, not just for racism against blacks, is glaring whenever a little light is shown on it.

In other words, racism is a part of the harm that needs to be repaired.

There's a tricky process.

The company's debt is paid at the time it is due, not 141 years after the fact.

And if payment is past due?

Furthermore, the debt is paid for by the sale of the stock itself and not years in the future; there is no similarity between the two.

It is paid through whatever means the board and officers see fit. And the owners of the company take the hit.

Just for a mental exercise, what happens when a company unloads a large portion of stock, specifically to those who have an ownership interest in the company?

This isn't individual compensation, this is rectifying the situation. We aren't talking about taxing all white people and then handing out a check to every black person.

It would make a lot more sense to present it as an attempt to better the situation of the black community in the here and now rather than presenting it as reparations for slavery. By presenting it as repayment for a crime committed in the past, you imply that every person is guilty of a crime the overwhelming majority of whom had nothing to do with.

Trying to impose guilt on people simply because they are white and whites owned blacks does nothing but mire the issue deeper in racism. If we want to enable the black community to climb out of its situation we have to move on from slavery; it may not sound right to "move on" from slavery, but we're not going to help anyone or change anything if we keep looking at something that happened 141 years ago rather than the future.

The company's debt is paid at the time it is due, not 141 years after the fact.Right. And it's paid at the time it is due because the creditors actually have the power to enforce payment--with the help of the government.

Reparations for slavery are LONG overdue. They remain overdue because freed slaves and their descendants did not have the power to enforce payment--and they did not have the help of the government to ensure payment.

Should the debt go unpaid because it was owed to the powerless? Does might make right?

Were it 1865 and the victims of slavery still alive and verifiable, it would be different; now you're doing nothing more than making the innocent pay for the crimes of their ancestors.This is an absurd argument.

This is like telling a debtor, "If you can just get away with it for long enough, you'll be off the hook."

The fact of the matter is that America has gotten away without paying its debt for far too long already.

That's no different that imprisoning the son because his father committed a crime that was never punished.Actually, it's a lot different.

If we treat slave-owning--with all of the brutality and degradation that went with it--as a crime, then the perpetrators should be tortured and summarily executed, then (science-fiction allowing) resurrected to have it done again.

No one wants to punish the descendants of slaveowners for their crimes. That would be obscene.

The appropriate analogy is this: Reparations are like demanding that the son repay the debts of the father.

Oh wait, we actually do that. :rolleyes:

It would make a lot more sense to present it as an attempt to better the situation of the black community in the here and now rather than presenting it as reparations for slavery. By presenting it as repayment for a crime committed in the past, you imply that every person is guilty of a crime the overwhelming majority of whom had nothing to do with.

I have never used the word crime. It also seems to me that government policy that lifts the black community out of the economic hole that they were thrown into in the first place would be the appropriate form reparations would take.

Trying to impose guilt on people simply because they are white and whites owned blacks does nothing but mire the issue deeper in racism. If we want to enable the black community to climb out of its situation we have to move on from slavery; it may not sound right to "move on" from slavery, but we're not going to help anyone or change anything if we keep looking at something that happened 141 years ago rather than the future.

I placed blame on the government, not white people, not people here and now, not the people prior to the civil war. And as a citizen of this democratic government, you pay taxes to it, so a portion of your money will go to pay for the just functioning of government.

The appropriate analogy is this: Reparations are like demanding that the son repay the debts of the father.

No it is like the father paying for the debts before he ever had a son. Sure the son is going to take a financial hit, but that doesn't negate the father's responsibility. Even if the father is a "changed man".

And if payment is past due?

Debt is always issued with an expected date of maturity and if it's past due it is collected immediately. There was no maturity on slavery, and there was easily 40 years in which reparations could have been paid to the people who deserve it. Even when a person dies, their debt is settled by their immediate descendents, not seven generations later.

It is paid through whatever means the board and officers see fit. And the owners of the company take the hit.

But they still knowingly issued the debt and agreed upon a set maturity date.

Even so, it implies that everything is exactly the same as it was 141 years ago. What about the states that entered the Union after the civil war? What about non-Americans who participated in the slave trade?

Just for a mental exercise, what happens when a company unloads a large portion of stock, specifically to those who have an ownership interest in the company?

Usually they take a tax hit, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I have never used the word crime. It also seems to me that government policy that lifts the black community out of the economic hole that they were thrown into in the first place would be the appropriate form reparations would take.

Reparations are money paid as amends for a wrong committed. When you use the term reparations you automatically imply that someone did something wrong or injurous to another and so they have to pay as justice for it. And msot things that are wrong or hurt others are crimes. It's not hard to make the connection. Reparations implies wrongdoing.


I placed blame on the government, not white people, not people here and now, not the people prior to the civil war. And as a citizen of this democratic government, you pay taxes to it, so a portion of your money will go to pay for the just functioning of government.

So we're paying for the wrongs committed by people 200 years ago but it's not our fault? We're not blamed but we still have to pay?

That's like making an innocent person pay the settlement in a lawsuit even though they had nothing to do with either side; the only way this would work is if there were actual slaves alive and the people alive had knowingly elected people who supported slavery.

Debt is always issued with an expected date of maturity and if it's past due it is collected immediately. There was no maturity on slavery, and there was easily 40 years in which reparations could have been paid to the people who deserve it. Even when a person dies, their debt is settled by their immediate descendents, not seven generations later.

First off, the US Gov't didn't die, and the debt was never settled.

Second, debt is only issued with an expected date of maturity because there is a method to force payment, there is no requirement that debt has a maturity date, it is just useful in reducing risk.

Third, the institution of slavery has very strong reprecussions today. To say that slavery only affected slaves is obtuse.

Even so, it implies that everything is exactly the same as it was 141 years ago. What about the states that entered the Union after the civil war? What about non-Americans who participated in the slave trade?

First sentence is a strawman.

The second sentence has been discussed already.

And the third sentence is irrelevant.

Usually they take a tax hit, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

They take a drop in the value of their stock.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the process of kidnapping slaves (breaking up families, putting a price on each person, and forcibly shipping them to a distant land) is a greater crime, and has done more harm, than forcing those slaves to work for no money.

Slave taking was an industry. It bought and sold slaves, for money. That would be the first place to look for someone to pay reparations, if it was decided to go that way.

Reparations are money paid as amends for a wrong committed. When you use the term reparations you automatically imply that someone did something wrong or injurous to another and so they have to pay as justice for it. And msot things that are wrong or hurt others are crimes. It's not hard to make the connection. Reparations implies wrongdoing.

And there was no wrongdoing on the part of the US and state governments?

So we're paying for the wrongs committed by people 200 years ago but it's not our fault? We're not blamed but we still have to pay?

No, the government is paying for the wrongs it committed 200 years ago. We pay taxes because we are citizens.

That's like making an innocent person pay the settlement in a lawsuit even though they had nothing to do with either side; the only way this would work is if there were actual slaves alive and the people alive had knowingly elected people who supported slavery.

Do you end every post with a bad analogy?

There's a tricky process.No one ever claimed it would be easy. :)

I am merely arguing that we'll probably do a better job of it if we're trying to do a good job of it than if we're ignoring it. ;)

Right. And it's paid at the time it is due because the creditors actually have the power to enforce payment--with the help of the government.

Reparations for slavery are LONG overdue. They remain overdue because freed slaves and their descendants did not have the power to enforce payment--and they did not have the help of the government to ensure payment.

Well, then what about people whose ancestors were repressed 1000 years ago? I have Irish ancestors and they were pretty badly repressed and powerless under the English for hundreds of years, so therefore I deserve reparations.

Should the debt go unpaid because it was owed to the powerless? Does might make right?

Debts are paid by the debtors, not by those who have nothing to do with it.

This is like telling a debtor, "If you can just get away with it for long enough, you'll be off the hook."

Not really. The debtors are long dead and the current owners have no ties to them whatsoever other than the color of their skin.

If we treat slave-owning--with all of the brutality and degradation that went with it--as a crime, then the perpetrators should be tortured and summarily executed, then (science-fiction allowing) resurrected to have it done again.

If it were possible to find the actual slaveholders and do so I would not have a problem with it. Slavery was a heinous crime that should not be forgotten especially by a democratic nation.

The appropriate analogy is this: Reparations are like demanding that the son repay the debts of the father.

Oh wait, we actually do that. :rolleyes:

But we're not the sons; slavery ended 141 years ago so we're at best the great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren of the fathers who committed the crimes, and many of us aren't related to the slaveholders at all.

And there was no wrongdoing on the part of the US and state governments?

There was, but it wasn't by the people alive today nor was it by their immediate ancestors.

No, the government is paying for the wrongs it committed 200 years ago. We pay taxes because we are citizens.

But we're still paying for the wrongs committed by people in the past regardless of our actual involvement. That implies everyone who has to pay for the reparations is as guilty as the government, either that or you have to pay for the crime just because you're unlucky enough to be a citizen at the time of reparations payments.


Do you end every post with a bad analogy?

Yes.

But they still knowingly issued the debt and agreed upon a set maturity date.And still you dance around the fact that the slaves never agreed to anything.

Your argument ONLY makes sense if, in short, might makes right.

Slaves never "agreed" to anything. Their descendants, moreover, have been demanding reparations every day of every year for the last 141 years that they have been free... not counting their persistent demands for liberation and reparation in the many years before that date.

The reason the debt has not been paid is because the more powerful party refuses to accomodate the obvious demands of the most simple ethics.

In my book, might does not make right. How about yours?

And msot things that are wrong or hurt others are crimes.Really? Are you aware of the ratio of civil to criminal cases in our court system?

Who needs to?

All we need to do is figure out how to reduce the legacy of slavery and racism, such that being born black does not in and of itself count as a very real handicap in the game of life.

"Reparations" is really about acknowledging that race still counts for a hell of a lot in this country, and admitting that this is a situation we have a responsibility to correct.

The anti-reparations argument is really about shutting our eyes to reality.

In which ways are people who are born black handicapped in the game of life?

Where do the handicaps lie?

What changes need to be made, and to whom, to render these handicaps powerless?

Money would fix poverty. This sounds more deeply seated than poverty. Who needs to change and how do they need to change to make the ancestors of slaves citizens who are equal to any and all others in your opinion?

...
Money would fix poverty. This sounds more deeply seated than poverty. Who needs to change and how do they need to change to make the ancestors of slaves citizens who are equal to any and all others in your opinion?

I can't think of an answer to that. Perhaps your question is rhetorical?

We've all heard that rhetoric before. But where is your evidence?

All of the empirical research I have ever seen demonstrates fairly conclusively that ignoring the problem does NOT make it go away. Moreover, studies of affirmative action programs have shown that they significantly increase not only the minority admissions to colleges and universities, but also their graduation rates, employability, and earning power.

Funny thing: like virtually every other problem in the world, this one seems to go away faster when people actually try to fix it. :rolleyes:


It is a observation I taken from society in general. One such example is the katrina survivors. There was a guy on the news who was compairing the buses to take them out of the city as a slave ship. Further, take our local west side: Despite trying to set up appartments and such for these people they just destroy it with gang violence or trash it. The appartments were torn down about 2 years ago because of them being so run down. There are several who have gotten out, worked and are very, very respectable people. What I see from many is abunch of whiners who just want a free ride.

If America is going to pay anyone, then at least pay the Vietnamese. Of all in the Vietnamese war who were hurt in America's chemical attack, the vietnamese weren't, and thsi damage was lasting physically.


the viets who now live in the US don't pay taxes for 7 years after they come here, I think thats plenty.

and no, reperations shouldn't be payed. Slavery has been around for thousands of years (read the bible). as soon as one group gets paid, every other group will want to be paid too. That, and once my ancestors came to the US, they settled in PA then WI. And they came here after the Civil War. Therefor, I'm not responcible and my taxes shouldn't go towards it.

I can't think of an answer to that. Perhaps your question is rhetorical?

Nope. Genuine.

There are no cognoscente arguments for the payment of reparations for slavery.
It is not my fault that most blacks are not wealthy – that is not a racist comment, it is simply a statement of fact. ‘Blame whitey’ is not a valid position, though conveniently shits blame away from the black community.

Too many people believe that throwing money at a problem will make it go away, but it won’t. The reason why blacks are, as a whole, worse off than other ethnic groups is cultural. Were it racism you would not see such a strong discrepancy when looking at immigrants who are black compared to American blacks. It does not matter what your skin color – if you glorify the thug lifestyle, denigrate those who attempt to get an education, refuse to accept responsibility for yourself, and make no attempt to improve your situation, you will not progress.

When I managed a retail store, I would have some people come in for job interviews dressed in a ratty t-shirt, jeans 10 sizes too large and hanging down almost to their knees (so as to better show off their boxers I presume), chewing on a straw throughout the interview, and have a pissed-off attitude. They would speak very disrespectfully, not even make an attempt at reasonable grammar (I’m sorry but ‘ebonics’ is not acceptable), and generally make sure I knew that they would not be taking orders (once, my assistant manager asked a guy to do something simple and the applicant responded with an appalled expression and “I aint yo slave!”). These people had an attitude of entitlement – which is exactly what talk of reparation is – that they were owed something just for being alive.

Contrast that with those who I did actually hire – those that would show up in clean clothing, speak respectfully (a simple “thank you” or “no thank you” when someone offers you something to drink goes a long way), and show that they had some kind of work ethic rather than think they are entitled to a paycheck for sometimes showing up, and gave the impression of being productive members of society.

And before some flamer says I’m just racist, there were members of all races falling into both categories. The problems are more socioeconomic in nature rather than skin color (and I suggest that anyone who says different is the true racist).

The problem is cultural, not the color of ones skin. A good friend of mine had to flush his report card down the toilet at school as soon as he got it because the penalties of getting good grades were severe – he would be ostracized for ‘trying to be white’. With attitudes like that it is no wonder why some black communities are not climbing the social latter.

There are reasons why some people are poor – while I am not saying that all poor people are lazy idiots, you cannot paint the poor as all being ‘noble people who have been unjustly oppressed’. Truth is, if you work intelligently and diligently you can succeed. We provide that opportunity in this country – that some cannot or will not take it is not the fault of those of us who do avail ourselves of the opportunity.

A friend of mine made the comment that if reparations were paid, he would invest his payment in companies that make spinning rims, as they will see sales soar, and then we would hear complaints that the economic situation hasn’t changed, which of course means we just need to pay more. All the money in the world won’t help someone who won’t help themselves.

My sincerest gratitude to the creator of this thread. Racial pussyfooting has gone too far in my country. The people of today should not be forced to pay for the crimes of those who have been dead for hundreds of years. Why can't we just forget about it, move on, and make sure that no NEW racism occurs. All of this pampering of minorities who have previously been abused further contributes to the "us vs. them" thinking. Isn't the end result we desire to have all cultures, while still practicing their own customs, feeling united in our country as Americans?

Even just the little things can perpetuate the us vs. them mentality. For example, when Halle Berry and Denzel Washington both won oscars, everyone made such a big deal out of how they were both black. HELLO...what about seeing them as GREAT ACTORS??? And I honestly have yet to see a black comedian do his act without making a racial joke. Enough already. :headbang:

My friend was telling me about a man his father knew. This man was originally from Nigeria, came to America with absolutely nothing, and waited tables and mowed lawns until he could get his GED. He worked some more and received student loans so he could go to George Washington University. He is now in graduate school, and was offered a position teaching summer school at the Washington DC public schools. While there, he was told by his black students to "go back to Africa".

I don't really think that money will help heal the wounds from hundreds of years. A change in attitude, and never letting anything similar happen again, might be a start.

There was, but it wasn't by the people alive today nor was it by their immediate ancestors.

Was there a wrongdoing committed by the government?

But we're still paying for the wrongs committed by people in the past regardless of our actual involvement. That implies everyone who has to pay for the reparations is as guilty as the government, either that or you have to pay for the crime just because you're unlucky enough to be a citizen at the time of reparations payments.

What is a democratic government?

My friend was telling me about a man his father knew. This man was originally from Nigeria, came to America with absolutely nothing, and waited tables and mowed lawns until he could get his GED. He worked some more and received student loans so he could go to George Washington University. He is now in graduate school, and was offered a position teaching summer school at the Washington DC public schools. While there, he was told by his black students to "go back to Africa".

His black students told him to go back to Africa? Why?

I'm still waiting to get my check from the Austro-Hungarians.

notion? hmm...
I've got to know
you've got a notion
to rock the boat
don't rock the boat baby!
rock the boat
tip the boat over!

No they get enough already from being in the minority.

There are no cognoscente arguments for the payment of reparations for slavery.
It is not my fault that most blacks are not wealthy – that is not a racist comment, it is simply a statement of fact. ‘Blame whitey’ is not a valid position, though conveniently shits blame away from the black community.

Too many people believe that throwing money at a problem will make it go away, but it won’t. The reason why blacks are, as a whole, worse off than other ethnic groups is cultural. Were it racism you would not see such a strong discrepancy when looking at immigrants who are black compared to American blacks. It does not matter what your skin color – if you glorify the thug lifestyle, denigrate those who attempt to get an education, refuse to accept responsibility for yourself, and make no attempt to improve your situation, you will not progress.

When I managed a retail store, I would have some people come in for job interviews dressed in a ratty t-shirt, jeans 10 sizes too large and hanging down almost to their knees (so as to better show off their boxers I presume), chewing on a straw throughout the interview, and have a pissed-off attitude. They would speak very disrespectfully, not even make an attempt at reasonable grammar (I’m sorry but ‘ebonics’ is not acceptable), and generally make sure I knew that they would not be taking orders (once, my assistant manager asked a guy to do something simple and the applicant responded with an appalled expression and “I aint yo slave!”). These people had an attitude of entitlement – which is exactly what talk of reparation is – that they were owed something just for being alive.

Contrast that with those who I did actually hire – those that would show up in clean clothing, speak respectfully (a simple “thank you” or “no thank you” when someone offers you something to drink goes a long way), and show that they had some kind of work ethic rather than think they are entitled to a paycheck for sometimes showing up, and gave the impression of being productive members of society.

And before some flamer says I’m just racist, there were members of all races falling into both categories. The problems are more socioeconomic in nature rather than skin color (and I suggest that anyone who says different is the true racist).

The problem is cultural, not the color of ones skin. A good friend of mine had to flush his report card down the toilet at school as soon as he got it because the penalties of getting good grades were severe – he would be ostracized for ‘trying to be white’. With attitudes like that it is no wonder why some black communities are not climbing the social latter.

There are reasons why some people are poor – while I am not saying that all poor people are lazy idiots, you cannot paint the poor as all being ‘noble people who have been unjustly oppressed’. Truth is, if you work intelligently and diligently you can succeed. We provide that opportunity in this country – that some cannot or will not take it is not the fault of those of us who do avail ourselves of the opportunity.

A friend of mine made the comment that if reparations were paid, he would invest his payment in companies that make spinning rims, as they will see sales soar, and then we would hear complaints that the economic situation hasn’t changed, which of course means we just need to pay more. All the money in the world won’t help someone who won’t help themselves.

So close to actually touching the issue, so perhaps a nudge.

Where does responsibility lie for the general socioeconomic disadvantages that the black community suffers from?

FullMetalJacket']Amen to that. Besides I think the goverment has paid much in the way of reparations already, it's called Welfare.


(snap!!!!)

though it is very true

NOT. being racist

My sincerest gratitude to the creator of this thread. Racial pussyfooting has gone too far in my country. The people of today should not be forced to pay for the crimes of those who have been dead for hundreds of years. Why can't we just forget about it, move on, and make sure that no NEW racism occurs. All of this pampering of minorities who have previously been abused further contributes to the "us vs. them" thinking. Isn't the end result we desire to have all cultures, while still practicing their own customs, feeling united in our country as Americans?

1. Slaveholders and slave traders committed no crimes (at least if they obeyed the laws governing their business). It is the respective governments that allowed and perpetuated this atrocity.

2. The reprecussions of the slave trade are creating "new racism" still. Forgetting about it and moving on only exascerbates the problem.

3. Perhaps you can show some economic data that shows how minorities are pampered?

Even just the little things can perpetuate the us vs. them mentality. For example, when Halle Berry and Denzel Washington both won oscars, everyone made such a big deal out of how they were both black. HELLO...what about seeing them as GREAT ACTORS???

Actually Halle Berry is a poor actress and her oscar is more a result that she is the only black actress who can get a decent role in Hollywood.

And I honestly have yet to see a black comedian do his act without making a racial joke. Enough already. :headbang:

This ending could only be trumped by starting your post with "I'm not racist, but"

I don't really think that money will help heal the wounds from hundreds of years. A change in attitude, and never letting anything similar happen again, might be a start.

How about social programs?

Acknowledging what you was wrong is one thing, but to give $$$ for the thousands that suffered, thats a little too much. Money doesn't solve anything in this case.

Acknowledging what you was wrong is one thing, but to give $$$ for the thousands that suffered, thats a little too much. Money doesn't solve anything in this case.

Especially when everyone's been dead for about 50-120 years.

Here's an exercise. Let's say your father stole $10,000 and gave it to you. Would you be responsible for giving the $10,000 back to the people he stole it from?

How about social programs?

We have plenty. "The Great Society" still exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

Here's an exercise. Let's say your father stole $10,000 and gave it to you. Would you be responsible for giving the $10,000 back to the people he stole it from?

Better question: say your friend's father did the same, and you came to the country 30 years later. Are you responsible because you have the same tan?

We have plenty. "The Great Society" still exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

Aside from the Civil Rights Acts that it sponsored, the economic policies of "The Great Society" had been undermined within 10 years and nearly destroyed by Reagan.

Better question: say your friend's father did the same, and you came to the country 30 years later. Are you responsible because you have the same tan?

For your analogy, how does your friend's dad relate to your government?

One government of the people. If you are the people you are responsible.

For your analogy, how does your friend's dad relate to your government?

One government of the people. If you are the people you are responsible.

Good question, you brought it up.

So, let me get this straight: you would make people who are totally unrelated to an event be forced to pay for something that the ancestors of another did?

Great! That means not only slavery reparations FOREVER (hey! it wasn't my fault I wasn't around in 2008 when they passed out the checks! That was 40 years ago! I want mine!), but that any responsibility is never expunged: every living German is always and forever PERSONALLY responsible for the Holocaust. The French for Napoleon. The Russians for Stalin. The Canadians for trading Wayne Gretzky. ETC! When does it end?!?

Here's an exercise. Let's say your father stole $10,000 and gave it to you. Would you be responsible for giving the $10,000 back to the people he stole it from?

How about this? Your great great grandfather stole 10 grand, and over the next two generations (assuming it even lasted that long) it was eventually spent. Would you be responsible for giving the money back when it had been already spent two generations back?

That argument's closer (but not all the way) to NOT being a strawman argument. Now, if the posted exercise had anything to do with actual slavery, as opposed to cash stealing fathers (the source of that money is unspecified), maybe it could possibly aspire to something other than strawman status.

After the sheer amount of time since slavery was abolished, any profits garnered from it would be long gone, and the fact remains that it was a crime done by people who are now dead against people who are also now dead. The real problem (namely continued racism) is NOT a problem that can be solved by taking money from ALL Americans (black, white, and whatever) and giving it out as reparation payments.

If you still insist on multigenerational guilt for crimes, how many generations should guilt last?

There is no person in any of the current federal or state governments that was alive then, and the laws by which those governments currently work forbid those acts. If you could somehow make laws retroactive with the help of a time machine, THAT would help... but reparations won't help. Nothing makes a person angrier than being punished for something they neither personally condoned nor personally did, and using taxpayer money to pay reparations is punishing ALL Americans for what was done by people long dead.

The only thing that can be done now is to try and deal with racism, and the best way to do THAT is through education. It might be better to put money in THAT direction instead of into reparation payments that don't actually fix anything. Giving money to one group won't make another group any less racist... and will probably make the problem of racism worse out of jealousy, if nothing else.

How about this? Your great great grandfather stole 10 grand, and over the next two generations (assuming it even lasted that long) it was eventually spent. Would you be responsible for giving the money back when it had been already spent two generations back?Very good. You, as well as the people who received the money (and the people they dealt with, and the people you dealt with, etc, on and on) would be collectively responsible for giving the money back.

That argument's closer (but not all the way) to NOT being a strawman argument. Now, if the posted exercise had anything to do with actual slavery, as opposed to cash stealing fathers (the source of that money is unspecified), maybe it could possibly aspire to something other than strawman status.Insert "labor stealing fathers" for "money stealing fathers" and you have an argument related to slavery.

After the sheer amount of time since slavery was abolished, any profits garnered from it would be long gone, No, in the sheer amount of time since slavery was abolished, any profits garnered from it would have been invested massively to the point where they're exponentially greater than they were, just that the slaveowners' descendants aren't necessarily the ones receiving the profits.

and the fact remains that it was a crime done by people who are now dead against people who are also now dead. Which indirectly benefits everyone alive and living in this country.

The real problem (namely continued racism) is NOT a problem that can be solved by taking money from ALL Americans (black, white, and whatever) and giving it out as reparation payments.I didn't suggest that the way of making reparations was necessarily giving money back.

If you still insist on multigenerational guilt for crimes, how many generations should guilt last?Until the effects of the crimes are no longer felt.

There is no person in any of the current federal or state governments that was alive then, and the laws by which those governments currently work forbid those acts. If you could somehow make laws retroactive with the help of a time machine, THAT would help... but reparations won't help. Nothing makes a person angrier than being punished for something they neither personally condoned nor personally did, and using taxpayer money to pay reparations is punishing ALL Americans for what was done by people long dead.

The only thing that can be done now is to try and deal with racism, and the best way to do THAT is through education. It might be better to put money in THAT direction instead of into reparation payments that don't actually fix anything. Giving money to one group won't make another group any less racist... and will probably make the problem of racism worse out of jealousy, if nothing else.If you benefit from a crime, be it directly or indirectly, you are responsible for undoing whichever benefit you received from that crime. Since every American has benefitted from the crime of slavery, every American is responsible for undoing that benefit.

If you benefit from a crime, be it directly or indirectly, you are responsible for undoing whichever benefit you received from that crime. Since every American has benefitted from the crime of slavery, every American is responsible for undoing that benefit.

So it never has end. Lovely. I can't wait for the entire planet to start cutting checks: I suspect the first thing the US will do is levy fined on England, Spain, and France for bringing slavery to these shores in the first place.

So it never has end. Lovely. I can't wait for the entire planet to start cutting checks: I suspect the first thing the US will do is levy fined on England, Spain, and France for bringing slavery to these shores in the first place.If they have a legal case, which I imagine they would, then it's perfectly fine for them to do so.

If you benefit from a crime, be it directly or indirectly, you are responsible for undoing whichever benefit you received from that crime. Since every American has benefitted from the crime of slavery, every American is responsible for undoing that benefit.

Since every descendant of every person who suffered under slavery is now an American, you would have to remove the derived benefit from them as well, punishing the descendants of the victims of this crime as well as the perpetrators.

Since every descendant of every person who suffered under slavery is now an American, you would have to remove the derived benefit from them as well, punishing the descendants of the victims of this crime as well as the perpetrators.No, it's not so much about punishment, it's more as though to say that they received a small amount of compensation already, but it's not nearly enough to rectify the situation.

No, it's not so much about punishment, it's more as though to say that they received a small amount of compensation already, but it's not nearly enough to rectify the situation.

They have equal rights to every person in this country, participate in the government, benefit from the economy, and otherwise are indistinguishable from other Americans other than in history. What part of the situation needs to be rectified?

They have equal rights to every person in this country, participate in the government, benefit fromthe economy, and otherwise are indistinguishable from other Americans other than in history. What part of the situation needs to be rectified?They aren't indistinguishable from other Americans other than in history. Look at poverty rates. Racism, etc., still exists today.

Ridiculous! My great great great (I think that's enough greats) Grandfather risked getting his balls blown off fighting (whether he knew it or not) to free the slaves in the Civil War. Now I have to pay reparations? I don't think so.

I don't think southerners should have to pay either, even if their family was responsible for some atrocious stuff, since that would be punishing the great great great grandson for the sins of the great great great grandfather :)

Other than that, this is just ammunition for those racist bastards who claim that blacks are the only ones looking for a handout.

If they have a legal case, which I imagine they would, then it's perfectly fine for them to do so.

Who are "they"?

That's the first problem.

They aren't indistinguishable from other Americans other than in history. Look at poverty rates. Racism, etc., still exists today.

Effects of racism are hard to trace, though, as well as relationships between things like racism and poverty. While it still does exist, it is extremely difficult to prove that racism is the primary cause and thus must be addressed through some kind of legislation.

But I think we were talking about slavery and reparations, not modern-day racism.

Who are "they"?

That's the first problem.Well, in the analogy you gave, 'they' would be the Americans bringing the suit, whether or not those Americans were descended from slaves.

Effects of racism are hard to trace, though, as well as relationships between things like racism and poverty. While it still does exist, it is extremely difficult to prove that racism is the primary cause and thus must be addressed through some kind of legislation.Those of us who are stating that reparations should be given aren't typically saying which form they should necessarily take; we are simply saying that there is a legitimate case for such a thing.

But I think we were talking about slavery and reparations, not modern-day racism.Modern-day racism is caused by slavery; you can't make amends for slavery without reducing the effects of racism.

Thats the problem blessing of democracy, you are responsible for the government. Its mistakes are your mistakes.

So by that logic the blacks will also have to coff up some of the compensation to be paid to them then.

Well, in the analogy you gave, 'they' would be the Americans bringing the suit, whether or not those Americans were descended from slaves.

That makes no sense. Does this suit include those blacks that came to America after 1865? How about 1965? What about people that are mulitracial, do they get benifits too?

Unless you can quantify a plantiff, there is no case.

Those of us who are stating that reparations should be given aren't typically saying which form they should necessarily take; we are simply saying that there is a legitimate case for such a thing.

The burden of proof then falls to you to show racism as a primary cause. I'm not saying there isn't a legimate case for such action, but it is very difficult to rule out every other contributing factor to single out racism.

Modern-day racism is caused by slavery; you can't make amends for slavery without reducing the effects of racism.

You can make amends for slavery and throw the issue of racism into the public eye at best. We're talking about recompense for crimes committed in the past, not recompense for the effects of that crime. Besides, racism deserves to be addressed as a problem on its own terms, not as the effect of a past problem.

The appropriate analogy is this: Reparations are like demanding that the son repay the debts of the father.

Oh wait, we actually do that. :rolleyes:

So let me get this straight in the US independent family members can be held liable for each others debt. That is just screwed up, the only time debt is passed on here in the UK is when the debt is jointly taken out by both parties. Marriage is the only exception as it is the joining of two people and so considered as one entity by the state.

So let me get this straight in the US independent family members can be held liable for each others debt. That is just screwed up, the only time debt is passed on here in the UK is when the debt is jointly taken out by both parties. Marriage is the only exception as it is the joining of two people and so considered as one entity by the state.

I agree!

Not only that, but let's take it a step further: not only would England, France and Spain have to pay, but the Africans that benefited from selling other Africans (often conquered tribes) would have to pay.

Then other, non-slave trading states would have to pay, since they benefited from the trade with the slaving states.

I'm done with this as a concept: slavery repartaions are not only silly, but they are impossible.

Good question, you brought it up.

So, let me get this straight: you would make people who are totally unrelated to an event be forced to pay for something that the ancestors of another did?

They are not totally unrelated.

They are members of the same government. A government that perpetually discriminated against blacks and other minorities for nearly 200 years. A government that never attempted to make right the wrongs it committed in the past. A government that is past due on it obligations to uphold the rights of all people.

. Since every American has benefitted from the crime of slavery, every American is responsible for undoing that benefit.

are african american no longer Americans since they are assumedly outside of this sweeping generalizatoin?

Perhaps you can show some economic data that shows how minorities are pampered?
I never said the pampering needs to be economic. It's something you come to realize by living here that everyone is so hypersensitive when it comes to offending minorities, especially blacks. Yet when people make fun of Asians, whites, etc. nothing happens. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.


This ending could only be trumped by starting your post with "I'm not racist, but"
Right. I'm not a racist. And I'm tired of hearing racist jokes.

They are not totally unrelated.

They are members of the same government. A government that perpetually discriminated against blacks and other minorities for nearly 200 years. A government that never attempted to make right the wrongs it committed in the past. A government that is past due on it obligations to uphold the rights of all people.

I'll deal with this in reverse order: What obligation? Please point to exactly what you mean. Before the 13th Amendment, slaves had no Constitutional rights.

Please cite a single piece of US Government legislation that was anti-black after 1865.

It doesn't exist. Try again.

I'll deal with this in reverse order: What obligation? Please point to exactly what you mean. Before the 13th Amendment, slaves had no Constitutional rights.

The most important sentence in US history reads:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I doubt I had to type that for you, and I doubt I have to remind you that that sentence and the following provide the founding principles and obligation of our government and every government.

Please cite a single piece of US Government legislation that was anti-black after 1865.

It doesn't exist. Try again.

Poll taxes, literacy tests, segregation.

In Mississippi you could be jailed for 6 months for publishing anything that espoused social equality between the races.

The Federal Government has complicity in all racist state legislation as it proved to have the power to stop it.

Please cite a single piece of US Government legislation that was anti-black after 1865.

i suppose woodrow wilson's segregation of the federal civil service in 1913 doesn't count for some reason? or the fact that the army wasn't desegregated until 1948?

So let me get this straight in the US independent family members can be held liable for each others debt.Well, not exactly... but for practical purposes it often works that way.

Basically, when someone dies their creditors get first dibs on proceeds from selling off the estate. Thus, if your parents owe $50,000 in debt but also own a $100,000 home, you are likely to inherit $50,000.

Now, that in itself sounds fine... but consider this...

My grandmother owns land, a home, and two small cabins on lakefront property--worth quite a bit. Of course, my parents and my Mom's brothers and sisters basically built the home, renovated one of the cabins, and reinforced the beach against water erosion. They have dumped tens of thousands of dollars into the place, which was expected to be a collective inheritance: everyone gets a share, and they would use it (as they do now) as a convenient vacation spot.

All of this would be fine, except for the fact that in the last few years dear old grandma developed quite a taste for gambling... and now the debt is outrageous.

There are a few legal loopholes that might work, like transferring ownership before she kicks it... but for a variety of reasons (including family squabbling) these are not working out. Effectively, therefore, it seems likely that the family's hard work will go down the drain paying off granny's debt.

The situation can be much worse for people who depend for their livelihood on the family's property... Farmers, for instance, if they fail to get sufficient life insurance to "buy the farm" when they die, may wind up having the farm sold off to pay debts, leaving their family with literally nothing.

In any case, the point vis-a-vis slavery stands perfectly well. When a private debtor dies, the debt does not magically "vanish." Rather, it must be paid from the proceeds of the estate. In this case, the next generation of (white) Americans after the Civil War inherited much more than their share, because the biggest debt of all had never been paid.

That debt remains outstanding... again, because the people to whom it was/is owed never had the power to enforce payment.

The most important sentence in US history reads:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."Indeed. If you have a chance, you should also read Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration, which included language with strong anti-slavery implications. It was removed before the Congress adopted a final draft.

Indeed. If you have a chance, you should also read Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration, which included language with strong anti-slavery implications. It was removed before the Congress adopted a final draft.

I don't think "implications," is quite the word:

"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them to slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportations thither."

I don't think "implications," is quite the word:

"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them to slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportations thither."Well, but you see my point. :)

I only use the weaker word because he does not explicitly condemn American slavery... it would be possible to interpret his words to allow the continued slavery of those who happen to already be in that state (as, historically, many political theorists have done).

Well, but you see my point. :)

I only use the weaker word because he does not explicitly condemn American slavery... it would be possible to interpret his words to allow the continued slavery of those who happen to already be in that state (as, historically, many political theorists have done).

The US did outlaw the international slave trade long before the Civil War, if I remember correctly.

Actualy my beloved fellow Americans , The U.S.A. started out and still is what's called a federalist democracy. Meaning that the states and federal government share governing responsiblities. Through out U.S. history there have been legislation after legislation of the federal government and states governments wrestling power from each other. We fail to realise that in modern times , well simply because the federal gevernment has won the majority of times. Which has also unfortunalty gotten a little too bloated and beaurcratic for it's own good in modern days. So for people to say the U.S. government has the finaly say in matters is not necasarily true. Even the very name of our nation implies that we are a group of governing states united in a greater nation.

More directly to the point of this thread ,though, entertaining the thought of slavery retributions over one hundred years later,quite bluntly, is horse shit.
Such andidea is not only logistacly imposible, but it would punish the children for the father's sins. I deeply regret slavery was ever a part of this nation, but it's not now and hasn't been for a long time. Such thinking not only perpetuates racist ideals, but also creates them.

Unfortunatly the worst thing to happen to the south after the Civil War was Lincolns asacination. For it was Lincoln that wanted to rebuild the south and keep Union troops there to protect the then recently freed slaves. The Civil War was without a doubt mainly due to slavery. For it was southern states that left the union for not recognising new legislation giving black slaves more rights and freedoms. It was southern writers and scholars that after the war wanted to focus more attention away from the fact that is was a war about slavery. They wanted to draw Americans views more towards a war of seccation and states rights instead.

So I have this to say to African Americans who want retribution, go visit Arlington Cemetery. Where there are buried thousands of our great great grandfathers who died for your right to be free. There is your retribution.

If there is anyone who questions what the civil war was really about and what Lincoln wanted to do after the civil war, be a real American and do some research on your country's history.Don't feed into the hearsay or propaganda some jackass down the street has told you. Including what I've written here. Do your own research.

I stand on this matter the same way i stand on affirmative action.

no---------------just here.

The company's debt is paid at the time it is due, not 141 years after the fact.
Furthermore, the debt is paid for by the sale of the stock itself and not years in the future; there is no similarity between the two.

Were it 1865 and the victims of slavery still alive and verifiable, it would be different; now you're doing nothing more than making the innocent pay for the crimes of their ancestors. That's no different that imprisoning the son because his father committed a crime that was never punished.
QFT! ^

No, give it to the people who actually did suffer? Yes, give it to their kids? No, they didn't do anything to earn it.

Ok, let's give in to the argument, for a second, that the US Government does still owe for slavery. Where does that leave people like me. My grandfather immigrated from Denmark in the 1920's. He grew raisins in the San Juaquin Valley in California and never had anything to do with slavery. Do we then owe for slavery?

What about someone who immigrated from Mexico last year?

Yesterday?

Where do you draw the line?

Ok, let's give in to the argument, for a second, that the US Government does still owe for slavery. Where does that leave people like me. My grandfather immigrated from Denmark in the 1920's. He grew raisins in the San Juaquin Valley in California and never had anything to do with slavery. Do we then owe for slavery?

What about someone who immigrated from Mexico last year?

Yesterday?

Where do you draw the line?Yep, you all "owe"... in the sense that, just like every other citizen, you (probably) owe taxes to the United States government... and the United States government has an obligation to pay off its debts with its tax revenue.

Or do you suppose that your money also should not be used to pay the loans taken out by the U.S. government prior to the 1920's? Perhaps the taxes raised on the income of yesterday's Mexican should be earmarked as "ineligible for payment of the national debt"?

What an absurd argument. Citizenship is citizenship. There are benefits to citizenship, and there are costs--paying taxes being one of the costs. One of the benefits happens to be that you are entitled to a voice and a vote when it comes to deciding what to do with that tax money.

In any case, you do not get to "excuse" yourself from paying taxes that contribute to some things. You only get to try to convince us not to pay for those things at all.

No. Sounds pretty stupid to me.

How can we give reparations to dead people? I'm confused.

How can we give reparations to dead people? I'm confused.
Their families and shit I assume.

it woudl boose the economy. All those escalades and gold chains and diamond earring studs being bought :p

If historical wrongdoings were worthy of compensation to descendants, we'd all be deserving.

That makes no sense. Does this suit include those blacks that came to America after 1865? How about 1965? What about people that are mulitracial, do they get benifits too?Yes.

Unless you can quantify a plantiff, there is no case.The plantiff can be quantified, just not by name.

I'm done with this as a concept: slavery repartaions are not only silly, but they are impossible.Not only are they not silly, but they are perfectly possible.

The burden of proof then falls to you to show racism as a primary cause. I'm not saying there isn't a legimate case for such action, but it is very difficult to rule out every other contributing factor to single out racism. Many of the other contributing factors are also the result of slavery.

You can make amends for slavery and throw the issue of racism into the public eye at best. We're talking about recompense for crimes committed in the past, not recompense for the effects of that crime.It's impossible to recompense for a crime without giving recompense for the effects of that crime. If you dump toxic waste illegally and give people cancer, you are liable for that cancer even though the crime is illegal dumping of toxic waste.

Besides, racism deserves to be addressed as a problem on its own terms, not as the effect of a past problem.True, however looking at racism as the effect of a past problem is one way of looking at the problem; it seems to me the more ways we look at the problem, the better we will be at solving it.

are african american no longer Americans since they are assumedly outside of this sweeping generalizatoin?Why should they be outside of the sweeping generalization? The taxes on the products made by slaves helped pave the infrastructure of the country.

I think I want to exact reparations from the Arabs.
For firing at my ancestors who were camping and dining in Iraq and Syria.
Under Tamerlane.

If we decide to monetarily compensate descendants of people who were wronged, hundreds of years ago, where do we end it?

If we say that Blacks deserve reparations, of course we must also compensate the American Indians.

If we compensate the American Indians, we must surely compensate all the Chinese Americans whos ancestors were little more than slaves, who built Americas railways.

If we compensate the Chinese, then surely we must compensate the Irish for the treating them as second class citizens during the early years of the American Immagration boom of the 1800's and 1900's.

Perhaps the Jews should sue Egypt for reparations for once being slaves to the Pharoahs?

Its a very slippery slope, and who is entitled to what, and how long ago was the offence commited are not questions wich have any good answers.

No black person in America that is alive today, has ever been made a slave, or ever been owned by another human.
The fact that your ancestors may have, isnt my fault.
No one is entitled to any money for something someone else did, however wrong, centuries ago.

So how many generations are criminals to be punished now? If you commit a crime do you condemn your children, grandchildren great-grand children and thus forth to pay for your crime? No.

Same principle.


My family immigrated to America near as I can figure in the 1870s to Indiana.

If we decide to monetarily compensate descendants of people who were wronged, hundreds of years ago, where do we end it?

If we say that Blacks deserve reparations, of course we must also compensate the American Indians.

If we compensate the American Indians, we must surely compensate all the Chinese Americans whos ancestors were little more than slaves, who built Americas railways.

If we compensate the Chinese, then surely we must compensate the Irish for the treating them as second class citizens during the early years of the American Immagration boom of the 1800's and 1900's.

Perhaps the Jews should sue Egypt for reparations for once being slaves to the Pharoahs?

Its a very slippery slope, and who is entitled to what, and how long ago was the offence commited are not questions wich have any good answers.

No black person in America that is alive today, has ever been made a slave, or ever been owned by another human.
The fact that your ancestors may have, isnt my fault.
No one is entitled to any money for something someone else did, however wrong, centuries ago.

And let's not forget the most consistently abused group there is: women.

Should all female citizens get to sue all male humans, for thousands of years' worth of slavery? Laws regarding females as property stayed on the books LONGER than laws regarding black men as property, and in many places they still exist to this day. Should women demand compensation for all the centuries they have been unpaid laborers? For all the generations of sex slavery, in which young girls were sold into marriage in business transactions?

Something tells me that there aren't many who would jump to support this.

Yep, you all "owe"... in the sense that, just like every other citizen, you (probably) owe taxes to the United States government... and the United States government has an obligation to pay off its debts with its tax revenue.

Or do you suppose that your money also should not be used to pay the loans taken out by the U.S. government prior to the 1920's? Perhaps the taxes raised on the income of yesterday's Mexican should be earmarked as "ineligible for payment of the national debt"?

What an absurd argument. Citizenship is citizenship. There are benefits to citizenship, and there are costs--paying taxes being one of the costs. One of the benefits happens to be that you are entitled to a voice and a vote when it comes to deciding what to do with that tax money.

In any case, you do not get to "excuse" yourself from paying taxes that contribute to some things. You only get to try to convince us not to pay for those things at all.
Ok, let's take the obverse of the argument. Who do we pay reparations to? Not every black-american is a decendant of slavery, do we have to verify claims through geneology or dna typing? What about blacks like Bill Cosby or Oprah Winfry? Is it on a basis of race, skin color, need?

And using your own argument above, do blacks pay reparations to themselves?

Ok, let's take the obverse of the argument. Who do we pay reparations to? Not every black-american is a decendant of slavery, do we have to verify claims through geneology or dna typing? What about blacks like Bill Cosby or Oprah Winfry? Is it on a basis of race, skin color, need?

And using your own argument above, do blacks pay reparations to themselves?
And what about individuals of mixed ethnicity? I've got a pal with an Irish father and an African American mother...does he get half reparations?

And what about individuals of mixed ethnicity? I've got a pal with an Irish father and an African American mother...does he get half reparations?
Or double?

We already pay reparations in the form of affirmative action.

The plantiff can be quantified, just not by name.

Not only are they not silly, but they are perfectly possible.

The defendant can also be quantified, but as groups they may have mixed in the intervening period between crime and recompense. If the goverment is to be held accountable, then every descendant of former slaves that is part of that government will have to be held accountable along with it. If the descendants of former slave owners are to be held accountable, then you must do the same to every desendant of a former slave that has intermarried with the slave owner's descendants. The century and a half that has passed has turned seperate antagonistic parties into a mixture of palintiff and defendant.

Not unless they were enslaved themselves. Silly idea. Its like compensating me cos the English invaded Ireland ( don't mean it racially just using it as a comparison)

Not unless they were enslaved themselves. Silly idea. Its like compensating me cos the English invaded Ireland ( don't mean it racially just using it as a comparison)

Exactly. As an ethnic Filipino I should go and demand reparations from Spain for everything Magellan did. I should demand reparations from the U.S. Then from Japan. Then from the U.S. again. And as a U.S. citizen...well, maybe I can squeeze some more reparations out of Japan, Germany, North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, al Qaeda. We'll all be rich!!! :headbang:

If we say that Blacks deserve reparations, of course we must also compensate the American Indians.That is a prickly issue, isn't it? We really screwed them over.

Personally, I would support all kinds of reparatory policies vis-a-vis Native Americans. Some have already been enacted... For starters, I think it would be a fine thing if we took seriously our own promises to regard them as independent sovereign nations, so that (for instance) we should let them legalize (or not) whatever drugs they want on reservations--rather than bully them about with our own crazy "war on drugs."

If we compensate the American Indians, we must surely compensate all the Chinese Americans whos ancestors were little more than slaves, who built Americas railways.That seems less likely. Where do you see communities descended from these workers the social and economic status of which needs to be "repaired"? To the extent that they were not subsequently the victims of a hundred years of overt racism, such communities seem to have either dispersed... or already been given the opportunities they need to advance themselves. Show me Chinese communities that need to have the damages of railway labor "repaired," and I'll fully support the effort.

If we compensate the Chinese, then surely we must compensate the Irish for the treating them as second class citizens during the early years of the American Immagration boom of the 1800's and 1900's.See above.

Perhaps the Jews should sue Egypt for reparations for once being slaves to the Pharoahs?Two things here:

1. Modern Egypt is, quite obviously, a sufficiently different state than the one ruled by the pharoahs that it should not be held to their debts. (I'll take, at a minimum, the rule suggested by Aristotle: given changes in a constitution, the "new" state is bound to repay the debts of the old only if the previous constitution was legitimate in the sense that its rulers legislated for the public, rather than their own private, good. Since the pharoahs were obviously tyrants more interested in their own absurd monuments than the good of their own people, I'm willing to say that no one owes anything on their debts.)

Its a very slippery slope, and who is entitled to what, and how long ago was the offence commited are not questions wich have any good answers.No, it's not.

All slippery slope arguments boil down to a refusal to make distinctions. I am perfectly willing to make meaningful distinctions. In short, reparations are due to those people whose current situation demonstrably suffers due to historical wrongs--it needs to be repaired; and the debt is binding on present governments provided that the rulers during the period of the crime were politically legitimate.

Should all female citizens get to sue all male humans, for thousands of years' worth of slavery?No, but black citizens also should not get to sue white citizens for slavery.

Rather, as a society we should make every effort to establish equality between men and women--on every social, political, and economic level. That is reparations for the way society had twisted the idea of "gender" for thousands of years.

Similarly, as a society we should make every effort to establish equality between the races--on every social, political, and economic level. That is reparations for the way society has twisted the idea of "race" for several hundred years.

Should women demand compensation for all the centuries they have been unpaid laborers?Again, no one can claim "compensation," for two reasons: 1) the crime is so outrageous (especially for women) that all the money in the world could not realistically "compensate" for it; and 2) arguments about "compensation" DO collapse under the argument that it makes little sense to "compensate" the distant relatives of victims with money belonging to descendants of the perpetrators.

"Reparations" are different. They have much less to do with "guilt," and much more to do with honor, ethics, and good social policy.

There is no body in the world that can force the United States to repair the damage done by slavery, or by the repression of women. But our generation should want to be the one that stands up to say, "We have been cursed with this legacy through no immediate fault of our own. But we will be better than our ancestors. We will right this wrong, and we will do everything in our power to see that nothing like it ever happens again."

This is the argument for "reparations" in the form of community development, the enforcement of desegregation law (which in many areas is still blatantly ignored), and so on. If we want our own grandchildren to live in a world that does not need to worry about these things, we need to do something about it now.

We can't just wait for men magically to become less sexist anymore than we can wait for white people to become magically less racist. Thousands of years of history should have taught us that, left to itself, sexism (or racism) does not simply "go away."

Ok, let's take the obverse of the argument. Who do we pay reparations to? Not every black-american is a decendant of slavery, do we have to verify claims through geneology or dna typing? What about blacks like Bill Cosby or Oprah Winfry? Is it on a basis of race, skin color, need?

And using your own argument above, do blacks pay reparations to themselves?Clearly you have been ignoring the several posts in which I and others have pointed out that no serious advocate of reparations wants to "hand out" money to individual black people.

Why? Because we are intelligent enough to know that they would probably spend it in ways that would not actually "repair" anything. It would be fun to spend, and (hopefully) some of them might use the money to get out of debt, or invest, or go to school... but by and large, the status quo would remain.

Reparations are about rebuilding communities, and fixing the society at large. Will this cost money? Yes. Does anyone need to "prove" descent? No.

And what about individuals of mixed ethnicity? I've got a pal with an Irish father and an African American mother...does he get half reparations?No one "gets" reparations.

Reparations go to programs that work to repair the damage caused by slavery and racism.

Thus, questions about "what to do with the mixed race" are irrelevant.

We already pay reparations in the form of affirmative action.Yes, that's right.

We just need to be more committed to other policies of reparation.

Reparations are not about the amount of money we have to spend. They are about the severity of the wrong that needs to be corrected.

Where do you see communities descended from these workers the social and economic status of which needs to be "repaired"? To the extent that they were not subsequently the victims of a hundred years of overt racism, such communities seem to have either dispersed... or already been given the opportunities they need to advance themselves. Show me Chinese communities that need to have the damages of railway labor "repaired," and I'll fully support the effort.

So basically what you are saying is that because the Chinese actually worked hard and overcame the ‘historical wrongs’ that they deserve nothing, where as those that did not bother should get some cash?

There are plenty of things done to ‘right the historical wrong’ – everything from affirmative action (preferential hiring of individuals, mandatory percentages of all business contracts in a large project go to minorities, etc) to inner-city revitalization projects focused specifically on black communities. The government has been offering a hand up to the black community for a long time – in response they just demand a hand out.

I am always willing to help those willing to help themselves, so making sure everyone has the same opportunity as everyone else is a laudable goal, but nothing beyond that.

The argument of “you owe me just because of my skin color” does not fly with me.

The problem is with the people themselves – were it a problem of skin color, black immigrants would not be doing any better than ‘domestic’ blacks. Likewise education, language, or whatever other indicators because black immigrants grew up with even less access to education and often English is not their first language. So were those arguments valid, black immigrants should be doing considerably worse than American blacks.



Note: I refuse to use the term ‘african-american’ to describe the group we are talking about. None of these people came from Africa, their parents didn’t come from Africa, and probably nobody in their family has ever even been to Africa for many generations. Some of my co-workers, having been born and raised in Kenya, are African-Americans.

So basically what you are saying is that because the Chinese actually worked hard and overcame the ‘historical wrongs’ that they deserve nothing, where as those that did not bother should get some cash?Partly, yes.

Clearly those Chinese were due reparations at the time... and probably for several generations longer. It is a second crime on top of the first that America (or the railroads) couldn't be bothered to do it.

Secondly, the fact of the matter is that said Chinese did not suffer (for long) the kind of systematic discrimination and pervasive racism to which America's blacks are still subject. This, at a minimum, still needs to be repaired.

There are plenty of things done to ‘right the historical wrong’ – everything from affirmative action (preferential hiring of individuals, mandatory percentages of all business contracts in a large project go to minorities, etc) to inner-city revitalization projects focused specifically on black communities. The government has been offering a hand up to the black community for a long time – in response they just demand a hand out.Who is demanding a "hand out"?

The argument about reparations is about continuing these very programs against increased resistance, and about strengthening them and improving them until we actually finish the job. It is about arguing that we have a moral responsibility to do this, on top of the fact that it is simply good public policy (for a variety of reasons including the fact that giving people an education tends to help them avoid a life of crime).

I am always willing to help those willing to help themselves, so making sure everyone has the same opportunity as everyone else is a laudable goal, but nothing beyond that.I would love for everyone to have the same opportunity as everyone else.

But the fact of the matter is that when generations of abuse and continuing racism are in the way, it takes work to make that happen. Racism does not simply whither away on its own. The hands-off approach only lets things get worse. (Just look at the many school districts that have become more segregated since the 1960s because governments refuse to actually enforce the policy. The Justice Department has a whole list of such counties.)

The problem is with the people themselves – were it a problem of skin color, black immigrants would not be doing any better than ‘domestic’ blacks. Likewise education, language, or whatever other indicators because black immigrants grew up with even less access to education and often English is not their first language.Actually, you're right... and then you're wrong.

Compared to most American blacks, most black immigrants have vastly superior educational experience at the primary and secondary level... and, if they stick around in Africa long enough, often a better college education as well.

The poorest Africans simply do not emigrate to the United States--because they cannot afford to do so.

So were those arguments valid, black immigrants should be doing considerably worse than American blacks.On the contrary, the success of black immigrants precisely proves the point.

For the record, white immigrants also have a lower unemployment rate than native-born white workers.

In fact, immigrants across the board have a lower unemployment rate than native-born workers.

What do you make of that one?

For the record, white immigrants also have a lower unemployment rate than native-born white workers.

In fact, immigrants across the board have a lower unemployment rate than native-born workers.

What do you make of that one?

Simple – that it is not an issue of skin color.
That has been my point all along.

So claiming that the reason why all blacks are not wealthy is because of racism, when in reality it is because they are shitty rugby players (sorry, couldn’t help it)

Edit: No people - that was obviously not a comment that black people cannot play rugby but one bashing the New Zealand rugby team wich is called the "All blacks".

Simple – that it is not an issue of skin color.
That has been my point all along.And that's where you're right. It's not a matter of skin color.

Rather, it's a matter of how one is treated based on one's skin color during the formative years of one's life.

In other words, today's racism is not so bad that a well-qualified, well-educated black person suffers (too much) at the hands of discriminating employers. (This no doubt varies greatly by region and occupation. Speaking of regional differences, I wonder if black immigrants come primarily to the North and to the west coast... or if they are drawn to the racist South... Hmmm....)

The racism built into our education system, however, is another matter entirely. You provided the evidence yourself: black immigrants do well, black native-borns do not.

And that's where you're right. It's not a matter of skin color.

Rather, it's a matter of how one is treated based on one's skin color during the formative years of one's life.

In other words, today's racism is not so bad that a well-qualified, well-educated black person suffers (too much) at the hands of discriminating employers. (This no doubt varies greatly by region and occupation. Speaking of regional differences, I wonder if black immigrants come primarily to the North and to the west coast... or if they are drawn to the racist South... Hmmm....)

The racism built into our education system, however, is another matter entirely. You provided the evidence yourself: black immigrants do well, black native-borns do not.

That being said, you've argued for a tenet of basic social justice, not reparations. It's a given that in any just society, all people will have an opportunity based on the extent of their drive and not the chance accidents of birth. It's also given that in case of disparity, any just society would take action to ameliorate that disparity. But reparations are neither a reflection of an equal society nor any serious attempt to ameliorate disparity. What they usually seem to be is some misguided attempt at paying back something they didn't suffer from and I didn't commit.

For my part, I would say that what we owe African-Americans is what a just society provides: an equal chance, and protection in case of failure. To the extent that we haven't and don't provide it, we ought to improve our programs. But we don't owe the proverbial 40 acres and a mule, because it is also a tenet of a just society that I am not obligated to be penant for something I didn't do.

And that's where you're right. It's not a matter of skin color.

Rather, it's a matter of how one is treated based on one's skin color during the formative years of one's life.

The racism built into our education system, however, is another matter entirely. You provided the evidence yourself: black immigrants do well, black native-borns do not.

Teachers are not racist (not as a group, there may be some individual teachers but no more than in the general population – and that goes both ways as I’ve seen racist black teachers too) – schools provide the same education to blacks as to whites, Hispanics, and Asians.

The problem is entirely the fault of the black community itself – if you do not value and education, if you do not value a good work ethic, if you denigrate anyone who tries to better themselves, you will fail. Blaming whitey for all your problems is just a way to dodge personal responsibility.

You cannot force a community to adopt a good work ethic; it has to come from within. We could pay all the reparations you want and in the end nothing will change.

If you mean that school systems are racist because of funding – schools are funded by the communities they are in: or do you believe that a poor white or hispanic or asian community is somehow secretly funded by the ‘keep the black man down’ conspiracy?

Friends of mine had to keep their report cards secret because there would be severe ramifications if anyone found out that they got good grades. Racist schools are not the problem – the other black students are. If you want to see a change in education, you have to change the students and their parents – if you don’t then all the well meaning programs in the world won’t help a bit, it is just flushing money down the toilet.

When you have a dependency mindset – the government has to give you everything rather than getting off your ass and doing something about it – yet another ‘program’ on top of a heap of other useless programs is useless.

I will pick on the city of Baltimore because it is a great city to use when talking about race relations. There are two neighborhoods I know fairly well – both equally poor, both equally uneducated, both filled with families that have been there generations, going to the same schools, working the same jobs, have the same houses, etc. The difference is that the white neighborhood is relatively clean and well maintained while the black neighborhood is full of garbage and graffiti and very run down. The reason for this is that the white neighborhood picks up after itself while the black neighborhood just complains that the government needs to take care of it (while throwing a sack of garbage out the car window). BTW: Baltimore is 90% a combination of black thug life and white trash so it is a great resource. If you want to experience the realities of race relations and poverty first hand, there is no better city.

When going to jail is a badge of honor and getting an education is something to be ashamed of, paying reparations isn’t going to fix anything. The black communities that actually encourage education, getting a job, and staying out of jail (and this will come as a shock to you I’m sure) actually do just as well as the white communities of the same socioeconomic status. This is in no way a racist country holding them back.

So once again I will state – the problem is not in a racist system trying to keep the black man down, it is the black man that is keeping the black man down.

That being said, you've argued for a tenet of basic social justice, not reparations.Actually, I've argued for both.

I don't think that the "end result" of reparations as I have described them should be any different than the goal of basic social justice.

However, all too often attempts to obtain true social justice with respect to race in America are met with complaints about costs, or assbackwards arguments about it being unfair or unjust to devote resources to the betterment of a particular class of people--whatever their condition.

The argument about reparations has no other intent than basic social justice. By bringing up the issue of reparations, we merely wish to remind present-day America that this discussion of "costs" is beside the point--even if costs are important, our society also owes a debt for causing the harm.

It's not as if black Americans just "happen" to have disadvantages compared to whites. Those disadvantages exist for very real historical reasons that cannot be written off in the face of "costs" or reified arguments about "fairness."

For my part, I would say that what we owe African-Americans is what a just society provides: an equal chance, and protection in case of failure. To the extent that we haven't and don't provide it, we ought to improve our programs.That's all I ask. And until we do, I'll keep crying reparations.

But we don't owe the proverbial 40 acres and a mule, because it is also a tenet of a just society that I am not obligated to be penant for something I didn't do.Personally, I don't think 40 acres and a mule--proverbial or otherwise--would fix much of anything at this point.

If you mean that school systems are racist because of funding – schools are funded by the communities they are in: or do you believe that a poor white or hispanic or asian community is somehow secretly funded by the ‘keep the black man down’ conspiracy?Yes, schools are funded by their communities... but within school districts (all getting the same funds, from the same source), schools remain segregated, and you can guess where all the money goes.

There are hundreds of examples. I'll name one. One of my students is a black woman who, before coming to Rutgers University, went to high school in Covington County, Tennessee. There one high school is 92% white, while others are up to 99% black. It's actually gotten worse since the Sixties.

The money comes from the same source for each... but somehow, it all goes to the white school.

The Justice Department has, for years, recommend that they combine into one high school, converting the others into elementary and middle schools.

The white population vehemently opposes such a move. Why? There's no pretext: they simply don't want their children going to school with black kids.

Please don't try to pretend that racist institutions are extinct. The evidence is all too glaringly obvious.

No, give it to the people who actually did suffer? Yes, give it to their kids? No, they didn't do anything to earn it.

Nobody earns repayment of a debt. As soon as it is there, payment is assumed.

If we decide to monetarily compensate descendants of people who were wronged, hundreds of years ago, where do we end it?

No one in this thread has argued for direct monetary compenstation.

If we say that Blacks deserve reparations, of course we must also compensate the American Indians.

I would certainly support the funding of improving the American Indian community.

If we compensate the American Indians, we must surely compensate all the Chinese Americans whos ancestors were little more than slaves, who built Americas railways.

If you can show the lingering socioeconomic effects of those laws that propogated the near slavery of Chinese-American workers, then yes, the government should work to correct those effects, and yes your tax money should help pay for it. There is no tax-exemption because you disagree with how the tax revenue is spent.

If we compensate the Chinese, then surely we must compensate the Irish for the treating them as second class citizens during the early years of the American Immagration boom of the 1800's and 1900's.

Its a very slippery slope, and who is entitled to what, and how long ago was the offence commited are not questions wich have any good answers.

What political issue isn't a slippery slope?

No black person in America that is alive today, has ever been made a slave, or ever been owned by another human.
The fact that your ancestors may have, isnt my fault.
No one is entitled to any money for something someone else did, however wrong, centuries ago.

Very few blacks in America today (probably none) have not felt the direct reprecussions of slavery in our society. Those reprecussions are largely a result of both action and inaction on the part of our government, which had made distinct promises not to act in the manner that it did. Lack of fulfillment on a legal promise results in debt.

Ok, let's take the obverse of the argument. Who do we pay reparations to? Not every black-american is a decendant of slavery, do we have to verify claims through geneology or dna typing? What about blacks like Bill Cosby or Oprah Winfry? Is it on a basis of race, skin color, need?

And using your own argument above, do blacks pay reparations to themselves?

We focus on black communities that are consistently poor and offer little opportunity.

And yes, tax paying blacks will pay taxes that will fund reparations. The most likely benefits will go to those who are not fortunate enough to pay taxes, however.

The problem is entirely the fault of the black community itself – if you do not value and education, if you do not value a good work ethic, if you denigrate anyone who tries to better themselves, you will fail. Blaming whitey for all your problems is just a way to dodge personal responsibility.

Do you realize how much you mirror the statements that were made by the proponents of racist policies in the past?

Do you realize how well you confirm our arguments that blacks suffer from the same ideas that were propogated by slavery?

You are a perfect example of why we need reparations.

I am not going to pay cash reparations.

I will continue support education and welfare programs with my time and money.

But I cannot support handing all the descendants of former slaves a pile of cash.

I am not going to pay cash reparations.

I will continue support education and welfare programs with my time and money.

But I cannot support handing all the descendants of former slaves a pile of cash.Which is fine, since nobody is suggesting that you do.

I was under the apparently mistaken impression that the reparations in question would be fiscal, like on the order of a lump-sum payment.

Yes, schools are funded by their communities... but within school districts (all getting the same funds, from the same source), schools remain segregated, and you can guess where all the money goes.

There are hundreds of examples. I'll name one. One of my students is a black woman who, before coming to Rutgers University, went to high school in Covington County, Tennessee. There one high school is 92% white, while others are up to 99% black. It's actually gotten worse since the Sixties.

The money comes from the same source for each... but somehow, it all goes to the white school.

The Justice Department has, for years, recommend that they combine into one high school, converting the others into elementary and middle schools.

The white population vehemently opposes such a move. Why? There's no pretext: they simply don't want their children going to school with black kids.

Please don't try to pretend that racist institutions are extinct. The evidence is all too glaringly obvious.

That really sucks, can't the black kids go to the mostly white kid schools that are richer or do they have obsticles when they try and do that?

That really sucks, can't the black kids go to the mostly white kid schools that are richer or do they have obsticles when they try and do that?

They tried that in my old town. My old high school (back in 1991) had a single security guard.

These days it has 3 full time cops and 6 guards, even though housing values have nearly doubled.

What's the change? Bussing. 20 kids bussed into a 800 kid school? Fine. 100? Now you have a little "ghetto crowd" that brings "the streets" into what was once a good school.

Neighborhoods exist for a reason: having a family that lives on $18,000 a year living next to one that makes 180,000 a year doesn't work. You get anarchy and crime. Same thing with bussing.

The moral of this story? HUMAN NATURE SUCKS!

They tried that in my old town. My old high school (back in 1991) had a single security guard.

These days it has 3 full time cops and 6 guards, even though housing values have nearly doubled.

What's the change? Bussing. 20 kids bussed into a 800 kid school? Fine. 100? Now you have a little "ghetto crowd" that brings "the streets" into what was once a good school.

Neighborhoods exist for a reason: having a family that lives on $18,000 a year living next to one that makes 180,000 a year doesn't work. You get anarchy and crime. Same thing with bussing.

The moral of this story? HUMAN NATURE SUCKS!


It is not politically correct to say it, but culture is the important factor there.
You cannot simply throw some black kids from the projects in with a bunch of rich white kids and suddenly expect them to magically become as successful as the rich white kids.
If anything it will cause the ghetto thug culture to become more deeply entrenched.

I cannot blame parents for not wanting their kids to have to go to school with a substantial crime rate in the name of ‘diversity’. While using this as a race issue is inappropriate, I cannot blame them for such opinions.

The solution would be to have a couple of high schools – the disruptive students, the ones with disciplinary problems, get sent to a different campus. That way the students who are actually trying to learn have the opportunity to do so in a safe environment. Of course that too would be unacceptable because a disproportionate number of blacks will be sent to the disciplinary school and thus the system is racist – like how some people in Baltimore complain that the cops are racist because they spend most of their time in black neighborhoods (it isn’t racist at all, that’s just where most of the crime is). Bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator is not a reasonable solution (though it is the politically correct one).

Much like streaming kids by academic ability – putting smart kids in with dumb kids does not improve anyone, though we could hardly let any students feel bad by not being in the smart class. :rolleyes:

It is not politically correct to say it, but culture is the important factor there.
You cannot simply throw some black kids from the projects in with a bunch of rich white kids and suddenly expect them to magically become as successful as the rich white kids.
If anything it will cause the ghetto thug culture to become more deeply entrenched.

I cannot blame parents for not wanting their kids to have to go to school with a substantial crime rate in the name of ‘diversity’. While using this as a race issue is inappropriate, I cannot blame them for such opinions.

I didn't say anything about race... though the "hip hop culture" is certainly a major proponent of the problems. Nobody ever THOUGHT of carrying a gun to school until 1993.

The solution would be to have a couple of high schools – the disruptive students, the ones with disciplinary problems, get sent to a different campus. That way the students who are actually trying to learn have the opportunity to do so in a safe environment. Of course that too would be unacceptable because a disproportionate number of blacks will be sent to the disciplinary school and thus the system is racist – like how some people in Baltimore complain that the cops are racist because they spend most of their time in black neighborhoods (it isn’t racist at all, that’s just where most of the crime is). Bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator is not a reasonable solution (though it is the politically correct one).

Ironically, the town HAS two high schools. Now instead of having a good one and an slightly underachiving one, they have two underachiving schools. (This happened because the town is ALSO bussing in some kids from another town for "quotas".)

Much like streaming kids by academic ability – putting smart kids in with dumb kids does not improve anyone, though we could hardly let any students feel bad by not being in the smart class. :rolleyes:

The only thing Social Promotion ever did was promote social decline. Natch.

I didn't say anything about race... though the "hip hop culture" is certainly a major proponent of the problems. Nobody ever THOUGHT of carrying a gun to school until 1993.The major school shootings have not been done by members of the hip hop culture.

If America is going to pay anyone, then at least pay the Vietnamese. Of all in the Vietnamese war who were hurt in America's chemical attack, the vietnamese weren't, and thsi damage was lasting physically.


As soon as they give us back our POW's. Of course i wasn't born then, so i shouldn't really have to say sorry.:)

The major school shootings have not been done by members of the hip hop culture.

I'm not talking about Columbine or Jonesville or anything like that. I'm talking about my own high school (and I'm having my 15th reunion this year!).

I'm not talking about Columbine or Jonesville or anything like that. I'm talking about my own high school (and I'm having my 15th reunion this year!).Oh, I know, my point was just that the reasons for students bringing guns to school are varied, and not necessarily related to the hip hop culture, so the culture can't be blamed exclusively for this.

Regarding the OP:

Blacks should get reparations because they were slaves.
And whites should get compensation because technically, their "property" DID get confiscated.

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but how much money can really be afforded to give to individual black people without sucking a substantial amount of money out of other government programs? I'm assuming that the amount cannot be much, so in the end, what does that really do for black Americans anyway, except give them some free mortgage payments for a few months? What the hell does that solve?

I think that we should help people escape from poverty, inferior education and discrimination based on their race/gender/income. I'm opposed to repairations if they benifit only the black community (I know, I know it will eventually benifit society but...). I think any country should support put emphisis on socail welfare and healthcare not just to help any one race but everyone in that situation.

The major school shootings have not been done by members of the hip hop culture.

Your post makes a point that I don't think it intended.

I doubt that there have been proportionally more school shootings in predominantly white schools, rather the media and society in general tends to ignore the violence in predominantly poor schools.

When a white kid shoots up a school, the media psychoanalyzes the kid, his parents, his classmates, all trying to figure what could have caused it. When a black kid shoots up a school it is brushed off: "What do you expect?"

And even if they were in the country, many of them lived in states where slavery was illegal. My ancestor who came over here came as a Hessian soldier to fight against the Americans in the Revolution. After the war he settled in Ohio and then the family moved up here to Michigan about a hundred years later. My family even fought for Ohio in the Civil War.

You should be executed for your treason! Your Great-great-great...grandfather fought against us!



Does anyone find that dumb? It's the same thing the "zOMG REPARATIONS j00 RACIST n00bs!" argument, just no one is calling for death. :)

Your post makes a point that I don't think it intended.

I doubt that there have been proportionally more school shootings in predominantly white schools, rather the media and society in general tends to ignore the violence in predominantly poor schools.

When a white kid shoots up a school, the media psychoanalyzes the kid, his parents, his classmates, all trying to figure what could have caused it. When a black kid shoots up a school it is brushed off: "What do you expect?"Actually, no, this wasn't the point I intended to make, though it's fine, also - that part of reparations might be for the media to actually give a fuck when black people are killed.

Somebodies earlier argument that the chinese haven't had to deal with segregation or discrimination for as long as blacks have is simply ignorant and wrong. Only in the last maybe fifteen years have discrimination against Chinese Americans imporved. Just because they are a smaller minority group doesn't mean that haven't suffered as much as blacks in this country.

Also quite frankly giving a statistic about a school district in the south isn't really very suprising. Give me a stastic outside the south that shows as much segregation. Now I'm not saying it's right, but everybody knows the south has been basicly eff'ed up for years concerning racism. Personaly it gives me one more reason to dislike the south. In that regards yes, the state governments as well as the federal government should make efforts to decrease the amount of racism in the south.

As far as the rest of the country is concerned, well that's a diiferent story. The problem with black communities in that regards isn't racism or segregation. Give me a stastic of a modern form of segregation in the north or the west. If you can find one I'll gaurentee you that it's mostly due to crime not racist ideals.

Let me give you ,through my own personal experience, examples of what I see as comparisons. I live in a small town in the north, not a very wealthy town, my graduating class was 59 and we had a few black students. All of which were treated equaly. Actualy a better word would be that they were just like the rest of us and color wasn't an issue. I've personaly had a few black girlfriends and friends in general. I've worked in the neighboring city in poor black communities and the likes. So it's not like I haven't been exopsed to the rest of the world.

However these are the differences I see in poor black communities vs. poor white communities ( yes poor white communities exist and there are alot of them ). People in poor white communities look out for each other they help each other. Poor black communities nobody gives a shit about each other. It really is sad to see how they say nothing and do nothing.

I mean o.k. in the inner city for instance... some one is selling drugs off the street or out of their house.. nobody says anything they just let it slide.
Somebody sells drugs out of their home in a suburb or smaller community shit the first mention of it and the cops are called to question the residents.

It's in my exeperience ( outside of the south and yes I have been out of my home state ) that leaders of inner city communities really need to start preaching more about comminuty saftey and security. That's right snitch on your neighbor. They also have to play down the " thug " life. The glamorization of " thug " life is really doing more harm than good.

Let me give you an example of that. We used to have a kid work for us that was half white half black. He was a good kid but he idolized the thug life too much. We took him in tried to teach him everything, hell even gave him some words of advice about life and how he has to change the direction he was headed. He was too busy idolizing hip hop though. He got in trouble with some cops at the mall and instead of just keeping his mouth shut he started to insult the cops and then assaulted one. Ruined his life trying to be a thug now he's sitting in jail.

You know I hate to say it, but black communities really have to work on themselves and belittle the idolization of thug life. Maybe preach more about working hard. Hell I didn't get where I am today waiting around for somebody to " revitalize" my trailor park or waiting for "retribution" for my Irish ancestors.

Yeah sometimes life is unfair, but you don't sit around wating for somebody to make it better for you. You take control of your life and do something with it. America is defeintly the land of oppurtunity. If it's not happening for you than more than likely your either being lazy or living in the wrong area.

Communities can only be improved on at the commuinity level, not the national level.

Do you realize how much you mirror the statements that were made by the proponents of racist policies in the past?

Do you realize how well you confirm our arguments that blacks suffer from the same ideas that were propogated by slavery?

You are a perfect example of why we need reparations.

Then their argument back then was bunk. It is a true and effective argument nowadays, however. The actions of the black community are certainly a reason for their current problems, but also certainly not the ONLY reason.

I fault three major players: Reverend Jackson/Al Sharpton et al, The Democratic Party leadership, and "gangsta rap".

THrough the rediculous efforts of the two "black leaders," they have attempted to reenslave the black population. They always blame all of the problems that the blacks suffer on the racism of the whites, which is proposterous. Through their and their cronies' efforts, they have worked to undermine the intelligence and integrety of the American black communities by convincing them that

A They can not deal with their own problems by themselves

B) All of their problems are the fault of the evil racist Republicans

By doing this, they treat the black community as incompetents who cannot do anything by themselves, and also absolve them of any and all personal responsibility.

The Democratic Party leadership is really in the same boat as Sharpton and Jackson. In the quest for votes, they promise Affirmative Action out the rectum, and "racial equality," blaming -- surprise! -- the "EEEEVil racist Republicans." They also advocate such welfare policies that the blacks, convinced by Sharpton and Jackson that they are incompetent and can't solve their own problems, play right into the Democratic Party's hand. As a lot of black communities are poor, convinced they can't do anything about their plight (which is false to begin with), the Democratic Party leadership comes to them with enslaving welfare policies, basically saying "you can't do anything, so we'll give you these handouts since you're too incompetent to work for yourself." It becomes so that then that some, if not most blacks, will not bother to try to work themselves out of their plight, or they lose their handouts.

So-called "gangsta rap" is another problem, albeit less of one. "Gangsta rap" glorifies so-called "ghetto culture." While some artists are choosing this path to warn people of the horrors of the "ghetto," which is a noble cause, it is counterproductive, because as the music gains popularity, people will begin to mimic it, therefore amplifying the problems, not quelching them.


Stemming back to Jackson and Sharpton's gang (though not necessarily them), no black is allowed to succeed, it seems. Condoleezza Rice was branded a "race traitor" because she worked closely with Bush. Hell, you could be labeled a race traitor simply by being a conservative. Or even working hard to raise yourself out of the slums and into the middle class or higher.

Reparations will simply fuel the racism espewed by the Democrats, et al, as it is only blood money, and there will never be enough of it.

You know I hate to say it, but black communities really have to work on themselves and belittle the idolization of thug life. Maybe preach more about working hard. Hell I didn't get where I am today waiting around for somebody to " revitalize" my trailor park or waiting for "retribution" for my Irish ancestors.

I agree entirely. The glorification of the thug life in no way helps things.


In fact, I would take a much more radical approach as to the rest of your post -- gut the inner city. Completely and totally remove the inner - city "ghettos. This separated and closed-off section only helps to fuel the problem. First, get the kids out of there and put them in the suburbs, where they can get a real education. THen, slowly, if we absolutely have to, make the government housing projects scattered about the city, and DO NOT CONCENTRATE THEM! The concentration only leads to a decomposing of the area, and then you're back at square one.

A They can not deal with their own problems by themselves

B) All of their problems are the fault of the evil racist Republicans

By doing this, they treat the black community as incompetents who cannot do anything by themselves, and also absolve them of any and all personal responsibility.No, when they say that they cannot deal with their own problems by themselves, they are not saying that they are too incompetent, but rather they can't do it by themselves in the same way that a person couldn't drag around a 2000 lb. ball and chain by themselves.

No, when they say that they cannot deal with their own problems by themselves, they are not saying that they are too incompetent, but rather they can't do it by themselves in the same way that a person couldn't drag around a 2000 lb. ball and chain by themselves.

What you are saying is what the "leaders" are proclaiming, but what I am saying is how they are the blacks are being treated.

The fact is, they could solve their problems by themselves. It would take work, but everything useful and worthwhile takes work. But the "leadership" (referring to people like Al Sharpton, et al, and select members of the DNC) is trying (and succeeding) to convince them that they can't handle their problems, that they need them to help, and by helping, it ends up enslaving them.

The blacks are being used by the DNC kind of like the Palestinians are being used by the other Arab nations. They don't care about their plight, they're just being used to further someone else's cause.

The fact is, they could solve their problems by themselves. It would take work, but everything useful and worthwhile takes work. Possibly, but due to racism, it would take a black person a hell of a lot more work than a white person.

But the "leadership" (referring to people like Al Sharpton, et al, and select members of the DNC) is trying (and succeeding) to convince them that they can't handle their problems, that they need them to help, and by helping, it ends up enslaving them.

The blacks are being used by the DNC kind of like the Palestinians are being used by the other Arab nations. They don't care about their plight, they're just being used to further someone else's cause.Quite possibly that is what happens, but racism is still in existence and is capable of holding people back.

Possibly, but due to racism, it would take a black person a hell of a lot more work than a white person.

Your point? I would rather work my ass off and free my family from bondage than be forced to live off of those handouts. That's how people should feel, but those leaders try to hold those communities back for their own personal gain.

Quite possibly that is what happens, but racism is still in existence and is capable of holding people back.

Capable, yes. However, I do not believe racism is as widespread as you think it is. And if it is, I honestly believe that some of the leaders of the black community, as well as the DNC, are responsible. How many white supremacist groups have you heard of assaulting blacks in any way? Not too many.

Who are the people who everywhere you turn are shouting "RACISM! RACISM!" Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, the people of the DNC. They have turned an anthill into a mountain, and people are getting fed up with it. Another problem is that people will blame everything on race.

The race card was and still is WAY to overused, and that has only hurt their cause, undermining the people who actually were subjected to racism. They no longer have the benefit of the doubt, and have caused many people to become apathetic, or, in the small, small minority, have created racists themselves.

THrough the rediculous efforts of the two "black leaders," they have attempted to reenslave the black population. They always blame all of the problems that the blacks suffer on the racism of the whites, which is proposterous. Through their and their cronies' efforts, they have worked to undermine the intelligence and integrety of the American black communities by convincing them that

A They can not deal with their own problems by themselves

B) All of their problems are the fault of the evil racist Republicans

By doing this, they treat the black community as incompetents who cannot do anything by themselves, and also absolve them of any and all personal responsibility.

I think that Sharpton and Jackson would reply to this that the black community is incredibly resilient for coming as far as they have in the midst of constant harrassment and hindrance.

And I think that you don't know shit about them.

The Democratic Party leadership is really in the same boat as Sharpton and Jackson. In the quest for votes, they promise Affirmative Action out the rectum, and "racial equality," blaming -- surprise! -- the "EEEEVil racist Republicans." They also advocate such welfare policies that the blacks, convinced by Sharpton and Jackson that they are incompetent and can't solve their own problems, play right into the Democratic Party's hand. As a lot of black communities are poor, convinced they can't do anything about their plight (which is false to begin with), the Democratic Party leadership comes to them with enslaving welfare policies, basically saying "you can't do anything, so we'll give you these handouts since you're too incompetent to work for yourself." It becomes so that then that some, if not most blacks, will not bother to try to work themselves out of their plight, or they lose their handouts.

Any evidence that blacks are convinced of their own incompetence, Sharpton and Jackson belief in black incompetency, the Democratic Party stating that blacks are incompetent, or the Democratic Party referring to the Republican Party?

And I have never witnessed a more purposefully obtuse representation of welfare before.

Stemming back to Jackson and Sharpton's gang (though not necessarily them), no black is allowed to succeed, it seems. Condoleezza Rice was branded a "race traitor" because she worked closely with Bush. Hell, you could be labeled a race traitor simply by being a conservative. Or even working hard to raise yourself out of the slums and into the middle class or higher.

Any evidence of this?

Reparations will simply fuel the racism espewed by the Democrats, et al, as it is only blood money, and there will never be enough of it.

Espewed? Blood money?

Nonsense and hyperbole.

no, i don't think compensation needs to be paid. that would seriously break the bank and besides, there's no-one left to compensate, you can't just decide to give a whole group of people with a particular skin colour money for the fact that people with the same skin colour were enslaved a long time ago. where would you draw the line - would someone have to prove they were descended from a slave? would 'mixed-race' people be excluded. what about slaves who had a different skin colour, what of their ancestors? what about the descendents of slaves who were freed by their 'owners' shortly after arriving for whatever reason? would the amount of compensation equate to how long a particular line was enslaved for?

having said that i see no problem with institutions being forced to publicly acknowledge their historical part in the slave trade and apologise or it. institutions are greater than their component people, they live on after those people die, often with the same values even if they are masked.

I think that Sharpton and Jackson would reply to this that the black community is incredibly resilient for coming as far as they have in the midst of constant harrassment and hindrance.

And I think that you don't know shit about them.

I think you're quite wrong about that, you're just too busy being guilty for being white.

Those two have done great things for the black community. It is past tense for a reason. Their efforts are more harmful than helpful, however, as they are simply pandering to the DNC because of their personal hatred of the Republican Party, and misleading the blacks to get the DNC votes. They need to take a seat.

I don't hear encouraging words coming from them, I just hear hate. Instead of encouraging the black community, they instead simply pass everything on to the "evil oppressive (right-wing) whities."


Any evidence that blacks are convinced of their own incompetence, Sharpton and Jackson belief in black incompetency, the Democratic Party stating that blacks are incompetent, or the Democratic Party referring to the Republican Party?

Well, you will dismiss it entirely as bunk, simply because if it disagrees with you, it's false, but I read this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0785263314/103-6608324-4828667?v=glance&n=283155) and from hearing various news reports on TV and radio, only confirmed it. I'm looking for internet stuff, but it was predominantly things I heard and saw, not read on the 'net.

You have to understand, it will be difficult, because -- and I know you're not that stupid -- no one in the DNC will come out and say "blacks are incompetent," as that would spell their downfall.

You also misinterpreted me. Sharpton & co. don't believe in their incompetency, they want to give the blacks the illusion and feeling of incompetency.

And I have never witnessed a more purposefully obtuse representation of welfare before.

Well, that's what it is being used for.

Any evidence of this?

Condie Referred to as an "Aunt Jemima" (http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/20579/)


Espewed? Blood money?
Nonsense and hyperbole.

Keep dismissing it, keep apologizing because you're white. You are in the same boat as Sharpton. You may think you're helping them, but you will only hurt them by continuing to force them to lean on handouts and gifts.

As Oprah Winfrey said, "The best cure for racism is excellence."

Your point? I would rather work my ass off and free my family from bondage than be forced to live off of those handouts. That's how people should feel, but those leaders try to hold those communities back for their own personal gain. No, the point is that nobody should be in bondage in the first place, and the 'handouts' are an attempt at breaking the chains.

Capable, yes. However, I do not believe racism is as widespread as you think it is. And if it is, I honestly believe that some of the leaders of the black community, as well as the DNC, are responsible. How many white supremacist groups have you heard of assaulting blacks in any way? Not too many.I believe racism is more widespread than you think it is.
Assault is hardly the only example of racism. Nonetheless, there are numerous complaints of police brutality, some justified, some not.

Who are the people who everywhere you turn are shouting "RACISM! RACISM!" Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, the people of the DNC. They have turned an anthill into a mountain, and people are getting fed up with it. Another problem is that people will blame everything on race.

The race card was and still is WAY to overused, and that has only hurt their cause, undermining the people who actually were subjected to racism.How do we determine which people were subjected to racism without first acknowledging racism?

They no longer have the benefit of the doubt, and have caused many people to become apathetic, or, in the small, small minority, have created racists themselves.This may or may not be true; nonetheless, I don't think policy should be formed based upon the opinions of the apathetic and racists.

No, the point is that nobody should be in bondage in the first place, and the 'handouts' are an attempt at breaking the chains.

I know. However, they are instead compounding them. They may be good intentioned, but intentions are not enough.

I believe racism is more widespread than you think it is.
Assault is hardly the only example of racism. Nonetheless, there are numerous complaints of police brutality, some justified, some not.

Police brutality is bad, period. Race shouldn't play a factor in whether its bad or not. Racism is there, yes, but I believe its existance is far less than people think.

How do we determine which people were subjected to racism without first acknowledging racism?

That's the problem. Because so many people play the race card far too much, when the wolf comes around, no one will care about the boy crying.

This may or may not be true; nonetheless, I don't think policy should be formed based upon the opinions of the apathetic and racists.

It shouldn't be, however, by them crying so much, it becomes so.

I know. However, they are instead compounding them. They may be good intentioned, but intentions are not enough.How would you propose that we deal with the problem and effects of racism?

Police brutality is bad, period. Race shouldn't play a factor in whether its bad or not. Racism is there, yes, but I believe its existance is far less than people think.Oh, I agree. I didn't mean to say that only racially motivated police brutality is bad, but rather that in some cases, the police brutality is racially motivated. It's also possible that some cases of police brutality might not be the result of a dislike of blacks, but rather of racial profiling; a black man driving an expensive car (Driving While Black).

That's the problem. Because so many people play the race card far too much, when the wolf comes around, no one will care about the boy crying.I think that even in cases where there is no wolf, most of the time there is a big dog.

It shouldn't be, however, by them crying so much, it becomes so.It can become that people become apathetic or racist because of it, but this isn't reason enough to change policy in and of itself.

Egyptians should pay reparations to the jews for enslaving them!

What about the portuguese? They were the main traders of slaves, they should pay all negros for hunting them like animals!

Egyptians should pay reparations to the jews for enslaving them!

What about the portuguese? They were the main traders of slaves, they should pay all negros for hunting them like animals!


*pokes*

Of course the Egyptians should.

We can sell 'em off to... North Korea.. if they havent got enough money.

What about the Assyrians, or the Babylonians? They enslaved lots of people.

Actually...Think of the italians, they should pay reparations to all the people of the former Roman Empire for using them as slaves.

What about the Assyrians, or the Babylonians? They enslaved lots of people.

Actually...Think of the italians, they should pay reparations to all the people of the former Roman Empire for using them as slaves.


I think we're working on making the Babylonians pay up raht now...
*discovers new excuse for staying in Iraq*
We haven't made the assyrians pay, but we're working on that.

Them Italians have been paying back with pizzas.

How would you propose that we deal with the problem and effects of racism?

Well, to be honest, there isn't a whole lot we can do that actually does something and doesn't violate common sense or personal liberty.

Oh, I agree. I didn't mean to say that only racially motivated police brutality is bad, but rather that in some cases, the police brutality is racially motivated. It's also possible that some cases of police brutality might not be the result of a dislike of blacks, but rather of racial profiling; a black man driving an expensive car (Driving While Black).

Unfortunately, you're correct.

I think that even in cases where there is no wolf, most of the time there is a big dog.

Rarely. Often, it's a tiny little puppy that people make larger than it is.

It can become that people become apathetic or racist because of it, but this isn't reason enough to change policy in and of itself.

That isn't, no, but when the policies are ineffective and the only major results they are producing are bad ones, yes, that is reason to change them.