Democrats and Reparations

[Nakosis]

Upon reading some stuff at work (of course while on break) I was reading about the discussions regarding Democratic candidates opening up the discussion of reparations for black Americans. Interesting enough the discussion of course on different political platforms evolved into inflammatory discussions.

I like the answer (in question form) that Bernie Sanders gave when asked whether he endorsed reparations for the descendants of African slaves he said "what does that mean?"

It has come to my attention that several Democratic presidential candidates are endorsing the idea of reparations for the descendants of slaves these include: Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Marianne Williamson. In a telephone discussion with a former school mate of mine concerning the subject, she approved of the idea of reparations as a means of closing the economic gap that many black Americans have far too long have staggered behind in time. All the false promises like 40 acres and a mule (which was never paid), Jim Crow, discriminatory housing practices etcetera have all played in affect, the stagnation of economic equality between black and white Americans. She further argued that abolishment of slavery did not reset opportunity for social and economical equality, and the systems that existed after slavery perpetuated racism which prevented equitable opportunity for people of color. In addition she stated to me that black Americans were impacted by federal housing laws and even today these laws in part are still in effect.

To put this in context for you guys my mother during her time could not live in any neighborhood and most certainly she had to live in areas where it was populated by predominately blacks. the value of home ownership in comparison to white home ownership is less even when crime was very low. The very fact that people were of a different skin pigmentation sets a particular value for the housing market and it still continues still this day. I then asked her how she felt regarding the pushback in social commentary Ben Shiparo came to mind. She said:

"When white Americans talk about why should I pay for something I was not involved in? I tell them why do we as taxpayers fund wars we do not completely believe in? Or what about African-Americans Latinos, Native Americans paying for reparations for the Japanese in the 1980's?"

Sounds compelling she further added:

"I take issue for those arguing against reparations focusing on the history of slavery and not take into consideration the subsequent discriminatory experiences faced by black Americans. 243 years of slavery, 10 to 12 years of reconstruction, 19 years of Jim Crow all the way until 1970 as the marker, blacks were technically free for 49 years. To add to this the Fair Housing Act was passed because it was filibustered for three years and MLK had to be assassinated for the House to pass it. When whites ask how they would feel about reparations to blacks, I tell them to ask the descendants of Rosewood and Black Wall street and how racism destroyed affluent black communities. There were blacks who owned hundreds of acres of land and had to abandon them due to the KKK threatening them with lynching even though police were present during those times (police are considered as government entities) smart Democrats see this."

Ultimately what I see that is problematic when it comes to Democrats pandering the idea of reparations is that psychologically we do not live in a society that is ready to recognize its sins and ready to close the gap because I firmly believe there are people that fear competition. I believe given the opportunity and if all things were reset equally with equal opportunities without discriminatory practices black Americans would be very successful. Unfortunately in my lifetime this society is not ready to acknowledge generations of discrimination which affected generations of people over time. Gentrification, redlining, all played a part in dismantling black economic growth that no Democrat will be able to fix, at least not in my lifetime.

While I'm not against the idea of reparations from a financial sense because IMO the government spends it's money on much worse things, like war, I don't think it will solve anything. Throwing money at a problem seldom solves the problem in my experience. It usually just creates a bigger mess.

I think people ought to stop depending on others for their wellbeing. I know it's a popular socialist idea but you never know which way the wind blows. Money runs out, politicians are more beholding to people with money than people in poverty. So it's just not a good idea to place your wellbeing into the hands of others.

I don't like that we spend money on war, fine. The survivors of the Japanese internment camps were given $20k, fine. You want to give every person who suffered discrimination prior to 1970, ok. Maybe it'll let some folks stop feeling guilty about slavery. Perhaps that alone is worth it.

Still by depending on other people for your wellbeing, that support is fickle. If a person can learn to depend on themselves regardless of the circumstance they find themselves in they can for that point on ensure their own wellbeing as well as show others how to ensure their own wellbeing.

People want to support reparations, ok by me. However I don't think things will change much as a result.

 

[Father Heathen]

Most of the atrocities done to the blacks were done by the Democrats. The Civil War was between the Democrats and the Republicans, with President Lincoln a Republican. The Republicans have been helping the blacks, against the Democrats, since the time of Lincoln, for over 160 years.

It's adorable how people try to compare the parties today to how they were 160 years ago, while ignoring the fact that today white supremacists, those who display the confederate flag, and/or those who defend confederate monuments typically vote republican. It reeks of pathetic desperation and dishonesty.

 

[sooda]

It's adorable how people try to compare the parties today to how they were 160 years ago, while ignoring the fact that today white supremacists, those who display the confederate flag, and/or those who defend confederate monuments typically vote republican. It reeks of pathetic desperation and dishonesty.

Its not funny... Its ignorant.

 

[Woberts]

Its not funny... Its ignorant.

It's kind of funny.

 

[Father Heathen]

As for reparations, who would be footing the bill? The guilty/responsible parties are long gone, and what about those whose families migrated from Africa after the emancipation proclamation?

 

[esmith]

Hey don't confuse the Dem's their

As for reparations, who would be footing the bill? The guilty/responsible parties are long gone, and what about those whose families migrated from Africa after the emancipation proclamation?

Hey don't confuse the Dem's more than they are, and they will never be asked a serious question by the majority of the media about this.

 

[Mindmaster]

The difference is a great one....
Indentured servants voluntarily entered into an agreement of limited duration.
Slaves had no choice in the matter. Ownership was typically for life.

Question...
Some former slaves later owned slaves themselves.
Should the owners' descendents be excluded from reparations?

I don't know man, to me a few years of slavery is slavery either way. It's pretty miserable, but I guess if I had to face starving and living on the street like most of those people did it's pretty much a no-brainer. But, that being said most of the people who sold blacks into slavery were blacks themselves. The slaves were slaves before they even came to this country in Africa, they were just traded like a commodity item for goods and became a slave to a white man. And yeah, a lot of freed blacks in the south (yeah, it was a thing) did own slaves just as white people did. Where do you draw the demarcation? If we go factual, white and black people both are responsible for the slavery of the black man. The black man was making money on it just as much as the white -- the only difference is the whites profited more as a whole personally, but the the blacks that profited were largely tribal chiefs/leaders and people of that ilk.

Because of the dynamics, I'd say it's wise to forgive and forget rather than following the policy of eye for an eye. But, if you're going to take back something from someone it's on you to prove they had anything to do with it. My white ancestors didn't even exist in this country before 1920 (hint: no slavery then), and I'm sure many others had families that came over much later. Should they have to pay too? That's the damn absurdity of the thing, without taking it on a case by case basis you're painting with that same broad brush the racists love to use. But, if the Democrats are embracing that idea I love it. It'll make sure they're not getting elected for jack and squat. The whole concept is political suicide, if you ask me. I don't like the Republicans much either, but I know crazy when I see it.

 

[Mindmaster]

Hey don't confuse the Dem's more than they are, and they will never be asked a serious question by the majority of the media about this.

And you never will, mostly because 99% shill for the Democrats. It's like this with entertainment, "journalism", and nearly every other medium. However, the history books have already been written and are largely offline -- the information is available to anyone that cares.

If anyone has to directly apologize to the blacks about slavery, it's the Democrats, bottom line. But, they're still pretending like it didn't happen, lol.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know man, to me a few years of slavery is slavery either way. It's pretty miserable, but I guess if I had to face starving and living on the street like most of those people did it's pretty much a no-brainer. But, that being said most of the people who sold blacks into slavery were blacks themselves. The slaves were slaves before they even came to this country in Africa, they were just traded like a commodity item for goods and became a slave to a white man. And yeah, a lot of freed blacks in the south (yeah, it was a thing) did own slaves just as white people did. Where do you draw the demarcation? If we go factual, white and black people both are responsible for the slavery of the black man. The black man was making money on it just as much as the white -- the only difference is the whites profited more as a whole personally, but the the blacks that profited were largely tribal chiefs/leaders and people of that ilk.

Because of the dynamics, I'd say it's wise to forgive and forget rather than following the policy of eye for an eye. But, if you're going to take back something from someone it's on you to prove they had anything to do with it. My white ancestors didn't even exist in this country before 1920 (hint: no slavery then), and I'm sure many others had families that came over much later. Should they have to pay too? That's the damn absurdity of the thing, without taking it on a case by case basis you're painting with that same broad brush the racists love to use. But, if the Democrats are embracing that idea I love it. It'll make sure they're not getting elected for jack and squat. The whole concept is political suicide, if you ask me. I don't like the Republicans much either, but I know crazy when I see it.

I don't know which slaves imported from Africa were slaves before.
But it's pretty safe to say that whatever the mix, bringing them to
Ameristan was horribly wrong.

 

[Mindmaster]

I don't know which slaves imported from Africa were slaves before.
But it's pretty safe to say that whatever the mix, bringing them to
Ameristan was horribly wrong.

I dunno, I kinda disagree with the wrongness to some extent... (We are not possessing the understanding or complete dynamics of the time) Sure, the initial context of slavery is bad, but I'm pretty sure that other in the poorest communities in the USA an average black American is doing better than his peers in Africa in all ways. Even our most terrible and dangerous predominately black community makes some spots in America look like a damn paradise, in comparison to the worst parts of Africa. So, as a whole, if we're going to look at the net outcome I think they were better off coming here, even if initially it was quite a struggle. Maybe they didn't have a choice, for whatever reason, but I think they're all doing better than what has happened back in the homeland in a majority of cases.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I doubt reparations would do much, largely because the problems you highlighted would still exist. Seems more of a "wanna-be bandaid" fix in hopes of ignoring the real problems to brush them under the rug and leave it for someone else to clean up.

The primary issue of reparations is it continues the perpetuated stereotype that blacks always want "free stuff" considering that the greater majority of U.S. society will not consider the historical implications that discrimination had impacting on several communities of color. Even so-called "model minorities" forget that it was because of the civil rights movement that they are able to reap the benefits of success.

But that is the assumption that reparations means giving out cash.

But that discussion amongst the presidential candidates amongst the democratic party isn't necessarily just about cash, rather they are exploring benefits such as academics and other avenues that could help struggling black families.

I don't really see that as compelling, as many will equally extend the sentiment towards wars and war reparations. It brings to mind Nozick's concept of "just acquisition," and the problem even he acknowledged with it and that is the question of how far back can we go before just becomes unjust? I've known many who are equally against reparations and blowing a place up and rebuilding it. Of course though we pay for a ton of things, through taxes, we have no involvement in. But when and where is it no longer significant?
And, yeah. It is a valid question of why do we fund wars we don't support and pay reparations to countries even though hardly anyone still alive had anything to do with it? Such as, should the grandchildren of Nazis still really be expected to bear the WWII war reparations?

It is a compelling argument because when we are talking about the argument against benefits towards the black community I hear the common argument by some Caucasians concerning this, and some say "well why should I pay for something I was not a part of?" Well, I feel the same way as a taxpayer when it comes to us giving Israel aid, or give these people or that people aid. Or why we fund wars. I don't believe in that, but I pay taxes and my tax money used to fund things I'm not in agreement with. Why is it that when it comes to closing the economic between the minority and majority, mind you, the minority being black have only been completely free for 49 years is unfair to everyone else considering abolishment of slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, Housing etc?"

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Blacks want reparations? Establish a sovereign reservation.

We are United states citizens

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I support reparations and other such proposals to address and acknowledge the gross injustices and atrocities in our past.

However, I'm not so certain that it's simply a matter of society not being ready to acknowledge generations of discrimination. From what I've seen, society does acknowledge and recognize what happened in the past, but as a society, we've been remiss in taking a good, honest look at the causes and effects of history.

Part of the problem is that there are too many "sacred cows" in the American political consciousness which would have to be challenged and torn down, if we were to take a truly honest and reproving look at our history and the structure of our society.

Damn big @Stevicus very well said...

 

[Epic Beard Man]

There are many, many highly educated and successful black Americans in all walks of life, some attributed to 'Affirmative Action' others to perseverance.

But this isn't about affirmative action. Affirmative action was not meant to be reparations. Do you not understand that the federal government promised enslaved black farmers forty acres and a mule? What if one of my family members was a farm owner? the U.S. government promised many black families that. By the way white women benefit more from affirmative action than anyone else

"Statistics show that white women benefit immensely from affirmative action"

Source:The People Who Benefit Most From Affirmative Action Are The White Women Who Oppose It

For a group that is opposed to it, sure as hell reap the benefits from it.

What we ought to be alarmed about now is the real possibility of loosing what has been gained.

What is that?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I hate this conversation for several reasons, first it's sort of the sins of the father thing. It's punishing modern people for what their ancestors did

Why does Germany not have a problem with this? Why does the U.S. not have an issue with giving back to Native American tribes or Japanese or any community for what it has done? Or do you think I'm merely referring to slavery alone?

1) The Democrats were largely the slave owners. Who really is to blame?

If you took political science you know that parties switched. the Dixiecrats whom you're referring to, which were democrats had very much had a hand in slavery. But parties switched. I wish people who want to blame the current Democrats for racism understood political parties switching and the history behind it.

"After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power. During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.

Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936. Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.

So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power."

Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

2) Black slaves were captured and sold by blacks, mostly.

Another white supremacist narrative get your African Diaspora knowledge game up sir:

"In How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Walter Rodney mentions how the white author of a book on the slave trade admitted that he was encouraged by other scholars to blame the slave trade solely on the Africans. This narrative helps to lessen European guilt by making Africans seem just as or even more guilty of being involved in the slave trade."

Source:Did We Sell Each Other Into Slavery: Misconceptions About the African Involvement in the Slave Trade | HuffPost

3) It's extremely racist if you think about it. The answer to racism isn't racism, or special consideration for one race over another. At best, it just reinforces that divides, and worst it fuels hatred from the people whom have to pay the tax.

This is what I hate about idiots (I'm not calling you specifically an idiot), its that there seems to be an idiot or a group of idiots who have used the herd logic of if they highlight a problem THEY are the problem. Such as, if you highlight and speak on racism you are suddenly racist. This has to be the most ignorant line of thinking I have seen as of date. highlighting a problem and speaking about a problem does not make you the problem! If talking about something that has had a generational affect on a community is a problem means you are the problem.

By history, if we want to decide who is paying it's Democrats and the families of former slave owners. I mean, we are interested in keeping it fair, right?

Apparently you are ignorant to political parties switching. I already explained this. The current democrats aren't the Democrats of the past. the current Democrats werte actually Republicans of the past.

Obviously, the idea is completely absurd -- first of all owning slaves didn't mean you mistreated them. Despite the popular tropes slaves were valuable to most people that had them -- harming them was like destroying your own home or vehicle; if they couldn't work their value was exactly zero. So, most slave owners did treat them at least a bit better than they could have existed in the poor and underdeveloped world they came from. They were at least treated as well as a family pet or livestock -- well fed, medical needs looked after, and so on. Yeah, it wasn't a great situation in comparison to now, but they certainly had a better life here than where they came from. (Africa was largely plagued by tribal wars at the time, with lots of human costs. Often your life span in Africa was pretty violent and short. Things weren't the greatest here for the slave, but certainly not as bad).

You obviously have some racial prejudices based on the format of the above post. You think in comparison to the environment of Africa, black people had it better? How do you know? Who taught you this? Funny, I didn't realize my fore parents having to endure rape and lynching was great. Or "white owners" telling my ancestors not to read or write or celebrate their traditions was good. you hate these conversations because maybe you're a part of the problem.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We are United states citizens

So are Native Americans.

Black folks would have their own land to go to, be in charge, engage in tax-free business , and distribute the proceeds among each other without undue interference from political whitey.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

So are Native Americans.

No, they are indigenous to this land they are not defined as "citizens" under the code of the law which is why we call them "Native Americans." A citizen (in its proper definition) is a member of a state or union who owes an allegiance to a government, Native Americans had neither of that sort in that context.

Black folks would have their own land to go to, be in charge, engage in tax-free business , and distribute the proceeds among each other without undue interference from political whitey.

Who is using the word "whitey" in this thread or are you trying to mock what you think we as black Americans say privately? We are citizens and native to this land due to slavery so where would we go and what land would we be given? Come on man Stormfront should have taught you better. Come better considering you naturally ought to have a higher IQ than me.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, they are indigenous to this land they are not defined as "citizens" under the code of the law which is why we call them "Native Americans." A citizen (in its proper definition) is a member of a state or union who owes an allegiance to a government, Native Americans had neither of that sort in that context.



Who is using the word "whitey" in this thread or are you trying to mock what you think we as black Americans say privately? We are citizens and native to this land due to slavery so where would we go and what land would we be given? Come on man Stormfront should have taught you better. Come better considering you naturally ought to have a higher IQ than me.

Being that's the case, and am completely being off track here, why then are calls for reparations even being brought up in 2018-19 in view the offending and victimized generations in question are both long dead and in the grave?

No one living today had anything directly to do with the situations and events that had occurred in 17th and 18th century. Even more specifically, what demographic of people aside from political affiliation, is being targeted for the proverbial writing of a check for an undisclosed amount and handing it out?

Is there a dollar figure established to the cost of reperations now? How is that calculated assuming such a figure exists?

I suppose all white folks that were lumped into the reperations call who's ancestors sacrificed life and freedom in the Underground Railroad should be included as well I would take it?

Should black slave masters/owners be exempted as well as the tribal lineages of any and all blacks that helped the whites enslave other men women and children and brought them to the US.

Personally I think we need to continue to look into the future rather than picking at old wounds that nobody can do anything about. Just my uneducated opinion.

 

[Shad]

It's not exactly the same, but comparable. If you're comparing two types of slavery which one is really better than the other, lol.

I was talking about legal protection.

But, again, just because something is possible doesn't mean it's useful or economically viable. Harming your slaves would cost you money, in the end, either in medical bills or losing revenue.

You are using harm subjectively. Slaves were often whipped for punishment. That is inflicting harm. Also problematic slave were often sold. A problematic slave will have low a low product value anyways so punishment may never do the damage you think.

Plantations were owned by businessmen, not the average Joe -- at the end of the day, sure you are going to see some instances of terrible treatment, but you see that even now when someone calls themselves an "employee".

Again slaves were not protected by law like employees are.

Only the mentally challenged would take a one off example of mistreatment and then attempt to display it as a norm.

You say that while taking an example of your own as the norm. Not a good argument

This was obviously not the case, because the largest driver of slavery was profits. You aren't making any money on wounded slaves who can't do the work, and it's doubly stupid to think that most people would willingly damage what they would consider to be their property.

You sell the slave that is problematic

It'd be similar to running a landscaping business and taking a hammer to one of your lawnmowers because it won't start that day. It just doesn't make sense to me at all.

Slaves are capable of things lawnmowers are not such as free will choices. The lawnmower is not telling it's own "No"

Murdering slaves was frowned upon, and later on completely illegal. From about 1732 on you'd go to jail if you killed one, even if it was your own.

Wrong as it was not consider murder in every circumstance. One could punish a slave which results in death but is absolved of the crime. Later laws were akin to animal abuse

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I also feel that every "African-American" here today should drop to their knees and thank God that their ancestors were one step slower than the black slavers.

What exactly is that supposed to mean? I honestly can't make heads or tails of it.