Zone1 Broad-brush reparations to all blacks is unconstituional

[Coyote]

No they did not get reparations. Only if they were sent to the camps and survived. If they did not, but ended up elsewhere in Europe and were sheltered by sympathetic people.

No, what I meant was I agreed they endured a lot, not that they got reparations. They weren't owed reparation by us.

 

[Lisa558]

The irony of people given all they have because of the color of their skin lecturing how it is wrong for others to ask for what they have been given should not escape anyone here.

What a racist assumption thinking white people have all they do because it was “given“ to them. Nothing about the discipline….the sacrifices….the talent….the ability…..the smarts.…whatever. Oh no….anything that whitey has was given to him.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

They were paid to every one who was interred regardless of age or demonstrated harm.

In order to have been eligible for restitution, an applicant had to have been:

1. alive on August 10, 1988
2. a United States (U.S.) citizen or permanent resident alien during the internment period December 7, 1941 to June 30, 1946
3. a person of Japanese ancestry, or the spouse or parent of a person of Japanese ancestry
4. evacuated, relocated, interned, or otherwise deprived of liberty or property as a result of Federal government action during the internment period and based solely on their Japanese ancestry

I disagree, tbe federal government was complicit in allowing Jim Crowe to stand.

Actually all forms of government were complicit - federal, state, country, city municipality, etc.

 

[Coyote]

FYI to the numbnuts, Jim Crow laws were NOT nationwide. They existed as the prerogative of those states that had them and were not uniform among the various states who had them. Plessy v Ferguson upheld that Jim Crow laws did not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution so long as imposed segregation held to a separate but equal public services policy for all.

But it wasn't equal.

It was overturned.

And it affected every Black person in America.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Governments are funded primarily by whites. That’s who will shoulder most of the burden. Don’t try to “fake us out” by claiming it won’t cost innocent whites and that it’s just the government that pays.

LOL "innocent whites"? Who are they Lisa?

 

[IM2]

This paper examines the U.S. government’s instigation, participation, authorization, and perpetuation of federal housing discrimination against black Americans from the 1930s to the 1980s and the damage that such discrimination caused and continues to cause today. Delving into the U.S. government’s twentieth century federal housing practices, this paper discusses how the government effectively barred black-Americans from obtaining quality housing and from investing in housing as wealth, while simultaneously subsidizing and endorsing white homeownership, white suburbs, and white wealth. Quantifying the U.S. government’s discriminatory practices with current wealth gaps between white- and black-American communities, this paper discusses the effects of twentieth century federal housing discrimination and argues that such government-initiated wrongs justify black reparations.

Black Reparations for Twentieth Century Federal Housing Discrimination: The Construction of White Wealth and the Effects of Denied Black Homeownership

This year marks the 400th anniversary of the first documented arrival of Africans to the United States, which resulted in the enslavement of approximately 4 mil

deliverypdf.ssrn.com

What "I feel" has nothing to do with facts. Neither does "what I believe".

 

[Lisa558]

Actually all forms of government were complicit - federal, state, country, city municipality, etc.

Upthread you talked about how “prohibited thoughts and attitudes“ still exist. You can’t outlaw racism - only racist actions. It sounds as if you’re mad that some people are racist and you want them to pay for it.

Believe me, I know the feeling, I wish all these antisemitic SOBs would be made to pay for their attitudes as well. But we can’t even get people to condemn the attitudes, let alone make them pay for it.

All that said, it is unconstitutional to hand out money to all blacks born before 1965 without proving damages, and the damages vary from substantial in Jim Crowe states to minor in northern states. You can’t just point-blank hand out OPM based on skin color alone.

 

[Lisa558]

LOL "innocent whites"? Who are they Lisa?

All whites who had nothing to do with Jim Crowe laws, which is 99% of them.

 

[noonereal]

The question has been raised as to why reparations to all blacks is unconstitutional, and the answer of course is that the government cannot give money to an entire race of people based solely on their skin color. Cases must be decided on an individual basis.

The following are two examoles: one of a black who deserves reparations, and another of those who don’t:

Deserves reparations:
Black 70-year-old who lived in Alabama: this particular black was deprived of equal rights for not being allowed to drink at certain water fountains, swim in certain public pools, or attend certain public schools.

Not qualified for reparations:
The children of the blacks in the below 1941 photo of CCNY college students, all of whom received a free college education. As a result, the children were raised by college-educated parents and probably went to college (and even grad school) themselves. These children would now be in their 70s, and THEIR own kids in their 40s.

IOW, the case for reparations has to be on an individual basis, not skin color.

The Frederick Douglass Society, CCNY 1941 · CUNY Digital History Archive

The CUNY Digital History Archive is a participatory project that centers the experiences of students, workers, faculty, community residents, retirees, and alumni of the City University of New York.

cdha.cuny.edu

What does "zone 1" mean?

 

[Lisa558]

But it wasn't equal.

It was overturned.

And it affected every Black person in America.

Not in New York and other states where blacks were going to public schools with whites anyway.

 

[IM2]

Jim Crow was nationwide.

Plessy v. Ferguson made it nationwide.

This is a list of examples of Jim Crow laws, which were state, territorial and local laws in the United States enacted between 1877 and 1965. Jim Crow laws existed throughout the United States and originated from the White Codes that were passed from 1865 to 1866 and from before the American Civil War. They mandated de jure segregation in all public facilities, with a supposedly "separate but equal" status for Americans of African descent. In reality, this led to treatment that was usually inferior to that provided for Americans of European descent, systematizing a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages.

• Arizona
• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Florida
• Georgia
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Montana
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• New Mexico
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Virginia
• Washington State
• West Virginia
• Wyoming

 

[IM2]

Lisa, you are not qualified to determine who is and who isn't eligible for reparations.

 

[Lisa558]

What does "zone 1" mean?

Well, it’s loosely enforced, but it means one is supposed to launch personal attacks, call others racist if they don’t think all blacks deserve reparations, that type of thing.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Those statutes of limitation exist for good reason too.

Yeah, the sole surviving victims of the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 are very well aware of that, as are the powers-that-be in that jurisdiction. They have successfully managed to lull them into not acting while successfully dragging out any legal action against the government by forcing them into appealing their decision while most of the plaintiff would not live long enough to either benefits or allow the action to continue after their death:

The term "lulling" in a legal context refers to a situation where one party engages in actions or behavior that may lead another party to believe that there is no need for immediate legal action. This can be done to create a false sense of security or to prevent the other party from taking prompt legal action.​

​

In some cases, if a party engages in lulling behavior with the intent to deceive or induce the other party to delay legal action, it may be relevant to the legal concept of equitable estoppel. Equitable estoppel may apply if one party detrimentally relies on the actions or representations of another party and it would be unfair or unjust to allow the other party to assert their legal rights.​

 

[IM2]

What does "zone 1" mean?

It means some people get to post virulent racism and get protected.

 

[Lisa558]

Lisa, you are not qualified to determine who is and who isn't eligible for reparations.

Either are you. As an interested party, you have an obvious bias.

But I am entitled to give my opinion. I believe the SCOTUS will agree with me and stop a massive wealth distribution plan that will bankrupt the country and is unconstitutional to boot.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

1) Japanese-Americans thrown in prison
2) Jews who suffered through the anguish of the Holocaust.
3) Southern black relegated to inferior schools and had his future severely limited
4) Northern black given free college education and who avoided traveling South 70 years ago, and who had a successful life thanks to the taxpayers who paid for his Bachelor of Science degree.

The only thing #3 and #4 have in common is skin color. You can’t award the same reparations to individuals regardless of damages and decided solely by skin color.

Lisa, you couldn't be more wrong. We've explained to you that your concept of "Jim Crow" only encompasses about 10% of what it actually entailed.

 

[Lisa558]

Yeah, the sole surviving victims of the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 are very well aware of that, as are the powers-that-be in that jurisdiction. They have successfully managed to lull them into not acting while successfully dragging out any legal action against the government by forcing them into appealing their decision while most of the plaintiff would not live long enough to either benefits or allow the action to continue after their death:

The term "lulling" in a legal context refers to a situation where one party engages in actions or behavior that may lead another party to believe that there is no need for immediate legal action. This can be done to create a false sense of security or to prevent the other party from taking prompt legal action.​

​

In some cases, if a party engages in lulling behavior with the intent to deceive or induce the other party to delay legal action, it may be relevant to the legal concept of equitable estoppel. Equitable estoppel may apply if one party detrimentally relies on the actions or representations of another party and it would be unfair or unjust to allow the other party to assert their legal rights.​

There are survivors from the Tulsa massacre? That happened more than 100 years ago.

 

[Lisa558]

Lisa, you couldn't be more wrong. We've explained to you that your concept of "Jim Crow" only encompasses about 10% of what it actually entailed.

And I’ve explained to you that there were plenty of blacks who enjoyed the same freedoms as whites, and in fact got generous assistance from the government. As a result, you can not award a blanket reparations amount to all blacks.

 

[noonereal]

It means some people get to post virulent racism and get protected.

Ok, I thought maybe it was a non vulgar zone. A non stupidity zone.
Is there any such easily identifiable place here because from what I see the entire site seems to be a cesspool. Why I keep leaving for extended periods.
Thanks in advance