The case for reparations

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

As laid out above, that is hard to oppose. 

So that seems like a reasonable starter. Where is becomes more complicated to consider is contemplating what happens in the events like if SCOTUS were to side with Natives in the Carpenter v. Murphy case:

Quote

 

Carpenter v. Murphy is a pending case before the Supreme Court of the United States and raises the question of whether Congress disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation. Although this question is specific to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, the Court’s decision is likely to also apply to reservations of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole Nations because all five nations have similar histories within the state of Oklahoma.

In 1866, Congress established reservation boundaries for the Muscogee (Creek), Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole Nations. The Muscogee (Creek) Nation boundaries composes three million acres in Eastern Oklahoma, including most of the city of Tulsa. The boundaries for all five nations consist of over 19 million acres and nearly the entire eastern half of Oklahoma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._Murphy

 

If you and I agree that it might be a good idea to let Natives own the Reservations they have tribal sovereignty over does that mean we think Natives should own 19 million acres of Oklahoma if SCOTUS were to open the door to it being Reservation land!? I doubt we would . Sometimes what is reasonable or logical at one level doesn't seem that way anymore when expanded out or scaled up. 

For me what promises the Govt has made is one of the central arguments for Reparations. For slaves the foundation for Reparations started with the promise of  40 acres and a mule ( also see Special Field Order 15). What was promised, taken, and or denied serve a central component to any discussion about Reparations. 

**I am not in favor of Reparations nor am I in favor of giving 19 million acres of Oklahoma to Natives. I am trying to have a conversation that addresses the history and takes a sober look at the issue. Extrapolating out these concepts isn't easy which is one of the reason they've been debated for over a hundred years. I don't see this conversation as simply being one where yay or nay cuts it.   

Edited March 31, 2019 by Ten oz

[iNow]

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

If you and I agree that it might be a good idea to let Natives own the Reservations they have tribal sovereignty over does that mean we think Natives should own 19 million acres of Oklahoma if SCOTUS were to open the door to it being Reservation land!?

Implicit in your question is the suggestion that it must be all or nothing. I suspect an acceptable compromise somewhere in between is available if only all parties approach the issue in good faith and in earnest. 

Surely, we can do a better job at honoring their history and claim to the land while also acknowledging what claims have been legitimately made since. 

[Ten oz]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Implicit in your question is the suggestion that it must be all or nothing. I suspect an acceptable compromise somewhere in between is available if only all parties approach the issue in good faith and in earnest. 

Surely, we can do a better job at honoring their history and claim to the land while also acknowledging what claims have been legitimately made since. 

I literally said "I doubt we would" after the question. The suggestion was that the situation is more complicated than the question implies. The last sentence in the post was "I don't see this conversation as simply being one where yay or nay cuts it". That clearly lays out that all or nothing at all is not the the way I see this. I think you read my post with an assumed subtext which wasn't there. 

Reparations has historically been about land. It is what slaves were promised and what Natives have been fighting for and are still fighting for. The ability to purchase land where they want or get equal treatment by banks is what Blacks were denied during Segregation. The Case for Reparations linked in the OP talks about land. The  first section of the article is about land. It opens with the telling of how Ross family lost their land:

Quote

"When Clyde Ross was still a child, Mississippi authorities claimed his father owed $3,000 in back taxes. The elder Ross could not read. He did not have a lawyer. He did not know anyone at the local courthouse. He could not expect the police to be impartial. Effectively, the Ross family had no way to contest the claim and no protection under the law. The authorities seized the land"

The case for Reparations continues and follows Clyde Ross through his life and addresses predatory lending behavior and mortgage discrimination:

Quote

Three months after Clyde Ross moved into his house, the boiler blew out. This would normally be a homeowner’s responsibility, but in fact, Ross was not really a homeowner. His payments were made to the seller, not the bank. And Ross had not signed a normal mortgage. He’d bought “on contract”: a predatory agreement that combined all the responsibilities of homeownership with all the disadvantages of renting—while offering the benefits of neither. Ross had bought his house for $27,500. The seller, not the previous homeowner but a new kind of middleman, had bought it for only $12,000 six months before selling it to Ross. In a contract sale, the seller kept the deed until the contract was paid in full—and, unlike with a normal mortgage, Ross would acquire no equity in the meantime. If he missed a single payment, he would immediately forfeit his $1,000 down payment, all his monthly payments, and the property itself.

The first sections continues and discusses the Contract Buyers League. The article discusses wealth inequality and how even black families with higher incomes have less wealth than white families with lower income. Connections are made to white flight and in pacts it had on poverty values and the neighborhoods Blacks lived in:

Quote

 

Weatherspoon bought her home in 1957. “Most of the whites started moving out,” she told me. “‘The blacks are coming. The blacks are coming.’ They actually said that. They had signs up: don’t sell to blacks.”

Before moving to North Lawndale, Lewis and her husband tried moving to Cicero after seeing a house advertised for sale there. “Sorry, I just sold it today,” the Realtor told Lewis’s husband. “I told him, ‘You know they don’t want you in Cicero,’ ” Lewis recalls. “ ‘They ain’t going to let nobody black in Cicero.’ ”

 

All of this is NOT to say that we must discuss reallocating land. Rather I am pointing out that land is a major part of the discussion. It isn't some off topic item. Blacks not receiving the land they were promised, not being able to buy and live in the locations of there choosing even when they could afford to, and predatory lending which made (makes) property more expensive and difficult to own is one of the central causes of the wealth gap between Blacks and Whites to this day.  

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Ten oz

[dimreepr]

Nice post. It is so easy to forget we're from different cultures.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

The last sentence in the post was "I don't see this conversation as simply being one where yay or nay cuts it". That clearly lays out that all or nothing at all is not the the way I see this.

Thanks for confirming our agreement. There was no malice intended by my misreading.

[CharonY]

I like to add two things. First, reparations are largely disliked in the population, that is a given. Quite a few arguments against it are that it is complicated (which is true). However, I disagree with the notion that because of that, the issue should not be touched at all. Rather, the case is that there should be an investigation to study e.g. effects and legacy of slavery and try to figure out which and whether there are processes to remedy them. While there are bits and pieces of historic studies, there has (to my knowledge) no official and comprehensive report from a commission that outlines or even acknowledges these issues in a comprehensive way. HR40 was such an attempt that has been introduced since the 90s. Similar aspects could conceivably also be attempted to resolve the status with indigenous people, though the issue is seemingly even more complicated.

Nonetheless, I do not think that ignoring the issue is the right way forward, either. Traditionally, the only measures conducted were imperfect band aids (such as affirmative action measures). Yet, because of the lack of a general population in the populace these are seen as undeserved handouts and are therefore seen critically and are vulnerable to dismantlement by the government (as it is the case right now).

[MigL]

Are we going to consider ALL the effects of slavery , CharonY ?

The argument could be made that, in the absence of slavery, a large number of black people would not even be living in the US.
Assuming comparable immigration by Canada and the US, I would think the US would have a similar percentage of black people.
Canada's population is about 3% black, while the US is closer to 13% ( all numbers from Wiki ).

A large number of American black citizens, without slavery, would now be living in central Africa.
Assuming they survived the brutal civil wars of the Congo, famines, Ebola and abysmal health care.

By all means let's talk about it. Discussion can only clarify people's opinions.
But trying to second guess what would have happened in the absence of an event, several hundred years past, gets very complicated, very quickly.

[CharonY]

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

Are we going to consider ALL the effects of slavery , CharonY ?

The argument could be made that, in the absence of slavery, a large number of black people would not even be living in the US.
Assuming comparable immigration by Canada and the US, I would think the US would have a similar percentage of black people.
Canada's population is about 3% black, while the US is closer to 13% ( all numbers from Wiki ).

A large number of American black citizens, without slavery, would now be living in central Africa.
Assuming they survived the brutal civil wars of the Congo, famines, Ebola and abysmal health care.

By all means let's talk about it. Discussion can only clarify people's opinions.
But trying to second guess what would have happened in the absence of an event, several hundred years past, gets very complicated, very quickly.

You are making the same argument that I mentioned. Yes, the situation is complicated. However, we are not even starting to look at a possible scope and you already seem to have the need to re-frame the issue. What does the situation in Africa (which to quite some extent are also due to the actions of colonialism) has to do with folks that have to do with African-American citizens having been repressed and disenfranchised for generations? Why would that realistically be the scope of the inquiry?

Unless, of course (I don't think you do) you want to make the claim that because they ended up in a wealthy industrialized nation they should consider themselves relatively lucky, and compare their luck to Africans then to their other fellow Americans... 

The case that is being made is that attempts for official inquiries even looking for the possibility of reparations, or at least a general, official acknowledgement of the situation whilst coming up with potential solutions has been consistently shot down. 

 

[Ten oz]

59 minutes ago, MigL said:

Are we going to consider ALL the effects of slavery , CharonY ?

The argument could be made that, in the absence of slavery, a large number of black people would not even be living in the US.
Assuming comparable immigration by Canada and the US, I would think the US would have a similar percentage of black people.
Canada's population is about 3% black, while the US is closer to 13% ( all numbers from Wiki ).

A large number of American black citizens, without slavery, would now be living in central Africa.
Assuming they survived the brutal civil wars of the Congo, famines, Ebola and abysmal health care.

By all means let's talk about it. Discussion can only clarify people's opinions.
But trying to second guess what would have happened in the absence of an event, several hundred years past, gets very complicated, very quickly.

Assuming you understand the problem with guessing what would have happened if history were different I am confused why you'd list problems in Central Africa. Who is to say what Africa would be like today had slavery never existed? It doesn't matter though because this thread isn't asking anyone to imagine a world where slavery didn't happen. Slavery did happen. This thread is asking about potentially doing something in response to things which happened. 

 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

First, reparations are largely disliked in the population, that is a given.

While true I would argue that misinformation drives that dislike. There is a lot of propaganda out there regarding how Affirmative Action has been implemented, the way organizations discriminate against white males, that welfare is reparations by another name, and etc, etc, etc. 

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Rather, the case is that there should be an investigation to study e.g. effects and legacy of slavery and try to figure out which and whether there are processes to remedy them. While there are bits and pieces of historic studies, there has (to my knowledge) no official and comprehensive report from a commission that outlines or even acknowledges these issues in a comprehensive way. HR40 was such an attempt that has been introduced since the 90s. Similar aspects could conceivably also be attempted to resolve the status with indigenous people, though the issue is seemingly even more complicated.

The problem I see with a study is that I don't believe it would change minds. People ignore climate studies, deny evolution, and are will & able to justify police shooting unarmed people in the thousands nationally. There is no limit to the cognitive dissonance. 

The ongoing ramifications of slavery and segregation are different in GA than in CA. I don't see a one size fits all solution. In GA blacks voters are still be disenfranchised at polls after all. My opposition to reparations isn't rooted in how unpopular it is. I just think there are many other things that need to happen which can better ensure equality. Things people are already fighting for. 

[MigL]

Slaves were illegally apprehended from the African interior, and separated from family and friends, to lead a life of slavery in the American south.
Without the 'market' there would have been no need for the capture/separation.
The two events are clearly connected.

Wouldn't want Ten oz to accuse me of only wanting to discuss certain effects of slavery and ignore others.

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

Slaves were illegally apprehended

Illegally per what law? 

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Without the 'market' there would have been no need for the capture/separation.

I don't understand your market reference. Can you elaborate on what you mean? 

[MigL]

Are you suggesting that since there was no law against the slave trade, it should not be taken into consideration ?
There was no law against owning slaves in the American south either.
By that flawed logic there is no need for reparations; everything was done according to legalities of the times.

If there wasn't a 'demand' or 'market' for slaves in the American south, who would you sell the captured slaves to ?
The Southern US ( and unfortunately, other parts of the world as well ) provided the monetary incentive for the slave trade.
It was very lucrative, and traders were willing to expose themselves to dangerous circumstances and disease ( at the time ) for those profits.

I would think the connections are very clear.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

The problem I see with a study is that I don't believe it would change minds. People ignore climate studies, deny evolution, and are will & able to justify police shooting unarmed people in the thousands nationally. There is no limit to the cognitive dissonance. 

While that is true, at the same time, it changes the overtone. While a lot of folks deny climate change and evolution, the discussion has quite shifted from 20 years ago. And I think that is a good thing. Even if things do not happen fast (or even at all), it is not a good reason not to start.

[Ten oz]

37 minutes ago, MigL said:

Are you suggesting that since there was no law against the slave trade, it should not be taken into consideration ?
There was no law against owning slaves in the American south either.
By that flawed logic there is no need for reparations; everything was done according to legalities of the times.

The fact that it was done legally is relevant to this discussion. Had it been illegal slave traders and owners could have been prosecuted for crimes and forced to pay restitution. During segregation institutions could have been sued for discrimination and forced to pay damages. Because it was legal those who benefited never paid any price for their actions and got to keep 100% of everything they gained through slavery and segregation. The victims simply received a reduction in the victimization they had to endure. 

49 minutes ago, MigL said:

If there wasn't a 'demand' or 'market' for slaves in the American south, who would you sell the captured slaves to ?
The Southern US ( and unfortunately, other parts of the world as well ) provided the monetary incentive for the slave trade.
It was very lucrative, and traders were willing to expose themselves to dangerous circumstances and disease ( at the time ) for those profits.

I would think the connections are very clear.

 I don't understand what connection you are making? To my knowledge no one here has stated or implied profit was made off exploiting slaves. This is an honest question. I do not understand what you are attempting to say. Attempting to answer it with more questions of me only makes the matter more confusing. 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

While that is true, at the same time, it changes the overtone. While a lot of folks deny climate change and evolution, the discussion has quite shifted from 20 years ago. And I think that is a good thing. Even if things do not happen fast (or even at all), it is not a good reason not to start.

I don't think the glut of associated research is behind the slow move towards acknowledging evolution or climate change.

In the case of evolution less people are religious and religion is the primary source of evolution denial. I think the decline in religious affiliation it mostly rooted in how interconnected the world is today. Religions generally have a tight fixed perspective of the world that haven't evolved quickly enough to meet the philosophical needs of their followers. Evolution research hasn't created disillusionment in Religion. Pedophilia, terrorism of extremists, homophobia, sexism, and etc have created the disillusionment. The information regarding evolution has always been available to those while to review it. 

I think views on Climate Change are shifting do to the hurricanes and floods reeking havoc across many of the states responsible for electing anti climate politicians. The price individuals are starting to pay is making the propaganda less palatable. 

I am not against a study. I the govt wants to take a look at it and commission a study I am fine with that. I just don't think it will change anyone's mind. The information is already out there. I am sure most Universities within the HBCU network have any number of research papers on the issue. 

 

 

[Raider5678]

On 3/22/2019 at 7:40 PM, Ten oz said:

90% of black people who are murdered are murdered by black people and 85% of white people who are murdered are murdered by white people. Black on black crime as a label promotes inaccurate stereotypes.

 

Minor correction, It had to do with rates.

Yes, 90% of African Americans who are murdered are murdered by other African Americans.

Yes, 85% of Caucasians who are murdered are murdered by other Caucasians.

However, in total, African Americans makeup just under 14% of the population and commit 50% of the murders, which is where the "black and black" stereotype comes from.

 

Ultimately however it comes down to culture more than anything. The overwhelming vast majority of homicides happen in cities, and it's not just because they're more populated. The rate of homicides are much higher in cities. But regardless, this is kinda off topic. Just figured I'd throw in the correction there.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

9 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

However, in total, African Americans makeup just under 14% of the population and commit 50% of the murders, which is where the "black and black" stereotype comes from.

Only 61% of murders are cleared (considered solved). https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/clearances

Several hundred thousand people go missing per year. Most missing people are located but 90,000 a year are not. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/2017-ncic-missing-person-and-unidentified-person-statistics.pdf/view

Many missing persons could be murdered most unsolved missing persons are presumed dead. By contrast there are 19,000 known murders per year with a less than 12,000 considered solved. So that leaves the door open to potentially 95,000 unsolved murders per yer. We do not know the race of those potential murders. Most missing persons are white. 

So claiming African Americans commit 50% of the murder is not accurate. African American make up 50% of the prosecution. Likewise African Americans make of about 50% of all drug arrests but that doesn't mean African Americans are doing 50% of all the drugs. What you highlighted is merely an example of how much more policed African American communities are. 

[dimreepr]

not to mention crime is a product of poverty.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

So claiming African Americans commit 50% of the murder is not accurate. African American make up 50% of the prosecution. Likewise African Americans make of about 50% of all drug arrests but that doesn't mean African Americans are doing 50% of all the drugs. What you highlighted is merely an example of how much more policed African American communities are. 

not to mention crime is a product of poverty.

[CharonY]

14 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Ultimately however it comes down to culture more than anything

The problematic issue with that statement is that it does not explain anything but, for some folks at least, carries certain connotations (i.e. that something is endemic or internal to a given group). It is only slightly accurate if one also include external factors, of which poverty and overpolicing were already mentioned. Unfortunately, that is often not considered when using the term "culture".

 

[Raider5678]

On 4/2/2019 at 6:54 AM, Ten oz said:

What you highlighted is merely an example of how much more policed African American communities are. 

You mean cities.

[internetcynic]

All this apologising for stuff from hundreds of years ago is bollox. It was a different world and different people, with a different set of morals, ethics and sense of right and wrong.  In their world , they did nothing wrong , as judged by thier peers.

 

You coud ltake this to ridiculous lengths. As an englishman, i demand reparations and an apology from Sweden for the VIking invasion of Britain in the Dark ages, for all the rape, pillage and burning.

Edited April 10, 2019 by internetcynic

[StringJunky]

51 minutes ago, internetcynic said:

All this apologising for stuff from hundreds of years ago is bollox. It was a different world and different people, with a different set of morals, ethics and sense of right and wrong.  In their world , they did nothing wrong , as judged by thier peers.

 

You coud ltake this to ridiculous lengths. As an englishman, i demand reparations and an apology from Sweden for the VIking invasion of Britain in the Dark ages, for all the rape, pillage and burning.

The last known slave died in 1937; still in living memory.

https://www.history.com/news/last-slave-ship-survivor-redoshi-clotilda

Edited April 10, 2019 by StringJunky

[internetcynic]

16 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The last known slave died in 1937; still in living memory.

https://www.history.com/news/last-slave-ship-survivor-redoshi-clotilda

Actually, moslems continue to take slaves in Africa to this day, one of many examples was Boko Harem in Nigeria taking 200 schoolgirls as slaves about four years ago. ISIS took Yazidis as slaves in Syria during the recent war.

And lets establish another point. Moslems were slaving in africa FOUR HUNDRED YEARS before the white man got there. Its just that they used to ship all the slaves back to the Middle east to sell them, whereas when the white men turned up they bought them on the spot, instant profit. Whats's more,  white men abolished slavery more than 150 years ago, moslems still havent, slavery is still commended in the Koran.  The number of slaves taken by moslems in 1400 years dwarfs the number turning up in the USA by at least a factor of ten.

So, if were going to go round retroactively laying blame an culpability then the two countries that need to bear the brunt of paying reparations are Iran (the leader od Shiite islam) and Saudi Arabia (the leader of Sunni islam).

And the other observation I have to make is all this bollox about reparations is really a cover for a part of the UN plan Agenda30  to distrubute thge wealth of the west to the East, without any of the recipents actually having to do anythign in return.  Personally  get sick of the west being blamed for slavery, when the Big League player was and still is Islam.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2019 by internetcynic

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, internetcynic said:

Actually, moslems continue to take slaves in Africa to this day, one of many examples was Boko Harem in Nigeria taking 200 schoolgirls as slaves about four years ago. ISIS took Yazidis as slaves in Syria during the recent war.

And lets establish another point. Moslems were slaving in africa FOUR HUNDRED YEARS before the white man got there. Its just that they used to ship all the slaves back to the Middle east to sell them, whereas when the white men turned up they bought them on the spot, instant profit. Whats's more,  white men abolished slavery more than 150 years ago, moslems still havent, slavery is still commended in the Koran.  The number of slaves taken by moslems in 1400 years dwarfs the number turning up in the USA by at least a factor of ten.

So, if were going to go round retroactively laying blame an culpability then the two countries that need to bear the brunt of paying reparations are Iran (the leader od Shiite islam) and Saudi Arabia (the leader of Sunni islam).

And the other observation I have to make is all this bollox about reparations is really a cover for a part of the UN plan Agenda30  to distrubute thge wealth of the west to the East, without any of the recipents actually having to do anythign in return.  Personally  get sick of the west being blamed for slavery, when the Big League player was and still is Islam.

 

 

 

 

The OP is about the US.

[internetcynic]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The OP is about the US.

yes. And a large number of the black slaves we're talkign about went thru the hands of moslems slavers.  Lets take this all the way back to the source, eh ?

[iNow]

Just now, internetcynic said:

yes. And a large number of the black slaves we're talkign about went thru the hands of moslems slavers.  Lets take this all the way back to the source, eh ?

And what, ask them to fund reparations? I'm confused how this matters to the topic