Zone1 Broad-brush reparations to all blacks is unconstituional

[Lisa558]

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

I noticed NY was not in your list. Thus, blacks in NY should not get reparations.

 

[Lisa558]

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

No, it’s pretty bad.

 

[Coyote]

The attitude 60 years ago and before that is that there is no constitutional right to have another person provide you with any product or service. The 'we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody' was allowed all proprietors as their unalienable right to associate with whomever they chose to associate and to have authority over their own businesses.

Passing laws making it a crime for races to be in the same facility together is not a proprietor choosing not to provide a service, so that argument doesn't fly.

You keep saying 60 years. What is the magical cut off date? Reparations to Japanese Americans were not made until 43 years later.

Right or wrong that was the American culture at that time and it provided a lot of lucrative cottage industries to black people who stepped up and ran businesses utilized by other black people. A white person was likely no more welcome in a black club than was a black person in a white one.

I agree. that was the culture then but that doesn't mitigate the damage done by those laws does it?

A White person might not be welcome at a Black establishment but at least he did not have to worry about police being called to arrest him and beat the crap out of him did he?

All that ended with the Civil Rights Act of 1964--60 YEARS AGO!!!!!--and the huge majority of injustices were made illegal everywhere. And effort was made by the government to give previously disadvantaged black people opportunity for better education, access to jobs, the right to eat at any diner etc. etc. etc. That was the reparations that was needed at that time.

So. effectively. they were given the rights they should have had in the first place. How is that reparation? Using that argument, releasing the Japanese Americans from internment would be considered sufficient reparation.

That some black people chose not to take advantage of the opportunities opened to them is pretty much nobody's fault but theirs. That white and black people now presume black people are so damaged and fragile that they are due reparations for policies that existed 60 years ago is hugely insulting to all black people who have integrity, ethics, and an understanding of what it is to be an American.

Those policies affected people ALIVE today. It has nothing to do with fragility.

Do you fling those same arguments at Japanese Americans who received reparations?

 

[noonereal]

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.

How about reparations for the families of all the whites killed freeing the blacks during the Civil War?
No one ever considers this.

And who should pay? Seems this should be on the shoulders of the red states who did the enslaving.

 

[IM2]

Part I examines the U.S. government’s housing practices—from the New Deal until the 1968 Fair Housing Act and its 1988 Amendments—to reveal that although the New Deal’s national housing programs revolutionized homeownership and home equity in the United States, the U.S. government’s federal housing programs were racially discriminatory. Specifically, and quite shockingly, the U.S. government actively created and promulgated racist neighborhood rating systems that constructed black neighborhoods and black property as unstable, volatile, hazardous, and not worthy of investment. Using these racist rating systems, the federal government endorsed racial covenants and invested federal money into the creation and accumulation of white wealth, the value of whiteness, white suburbia, and white homeownership. Meanwhile, the government denied blacks federal housing funding, fueling black stigma and barring black-Americans from the invaluable twentieth century opportunities of homeownership and home equity.

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

Just call me John Henrik Clarke. I'm done debating the likes of Lisa and foxfyre.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

So what? Everybody had the choice to go to those states with the understanding that certain laws exist and everybody had the choice not to go to those states. There is no constitutional right to dictate what a state's laws must be so that I feel comfortable visiting there.

So you don't' believe in Constitutional rights for everyone?

 

[Coyote]

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

Yes. In New York. That is assuming you agree they have the same rights to travel outside New York as you and your family do.

 

[Foxfyre]

But it wasn't equal.

It was overturned.

And it affected every Black person in America.

Affected is not the same as harmed. I am affected by rude, insensitive, angry, hateful people all the time. I avoid some areas that are just not safe to be. I very often have needed to travel and there were no means of travel available at the time I needed them. I have had to prove my worth in several jobs I have had, have had to work commission instead of salary to get a decent income, have had job assignments that really no woman should have to do but I did them. I have been paid a lower salary because I was married and had a husband to help with expenses.

Can I show personal or material damages for any of that? Of course not. I accept that we are people living in an imperfect world that is going to get it wrong from time to time which is a fact of all of human history. As a people we change our views and attitudes as time passes and we try to stop doing things badly and replace them with doing things more constructively.

To pay all black people reparations for a culture that existed 60 or more years ago while ignoring all the other injustices that happened to other people is just dumb and pandering in a way that will harm black people for generations if the race baiters succeed in this insane policy.

 

[katsteve2012]

Because fundamental rights are not determined by state boundaries. He would effectively been prevented from traveling to or through a third of the country.

I have just one comment, and I'm out.

"Allowed to" yes. But at extreme risk.
I still have the copy of my parents "Green Book" in my library that they used while driving us across the country numerous times between the late 50's through the early and mid 60's.

Since they were very involved in the Civil Rights movement and registering people to vote, we stopped in numerous towns where it was a life risking proposition to even attempt to ask to use a bathroom or be served any food, even through the backdoor, or buy gas, so we could just keep it moving.

I won't even bother to go into any detail about what possibly could have gone wrong had there been one iota of resistance to those restrictions.

So yes, travel to any geographical region was allowed, but it was at one's own risk.

And the risks in many cases were life threatening.

Anyway, carry on.

P.S.
A linked story about the "Green Book", and how some of it's published travel routes and stops are still in existence today.

A look inside the Green Book, which guided Black travelers through a segregated and hostile America

The guide's creator knew the racist dangers Black motorists faced in the 1940s through the 1960s and hoped one day his Green Books wouldn't be needed

www.usatoday.com

 

[Coyote]

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.

Again. It is not based on “just” skin color. It is based on a specific group of people who’s constitutional rights were violated under certain laws.

 

[IM2]

How about reparations for the families of all the whites killed freeing the blacks during the Civil War?
No one ever considers this.

And who should pay? Seems this should be on the shoulders of the red states who did the enslaving.

Whites got reparations for the Civil War and blacks fought in that war. It is appoarent that whites didn't fight to free us because after the war they started Jim Crow. And so if you would like to try this argument then whites got reparations in the form of the homestead acts along with war payments.

 

[Foxfyre]

Passing laws making it a crime for races to be in the same facility together is not a proprietor choosing not to provide a service, so that argument doesn't fly.

You keep saying 60 years. What is the magical cut off date? Reparations to Japanese Americans were not made until 43 years later.




I agree. that was the culture then but that doesn't mitigate the damage done by those laws does it?

A White person might not be welcome at a Black establishment but at least he did not have to worry about police being called to arrest him and beat the crap out of him did he?



So. effectively. they were given the rights they should have had in the first place. How is that reparation? Using that argument, releasing the Japanese Americans from internment would be considered sufficient reparation.


Those policies affected people ALIVE today. It has nothing to do with fragility.

Do you fling those same arguments at Japanese Americans who received reparations?

Okay I have asked you before to not chop up posts. It destroys context and flow of the argument, makes it hard to follow the conversation, and is tedious and boring especially for others to read.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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.

SCOTUS says a lot of things that are just flat out wrong and its decision that "separate but equal" did not violate the U.S. Constitution allowed the violation of the constitutional rights of millions of Black Americans until it was invalidated by Brown v the Board of Education, particularly since the "separate" facilities were rarely equal.

 

[Coyote]

Affected is not the same as harmed. I am affected by rude, insensitive, angry, hateful people all the time. I avoid some areas that are just not safe to be. I very often have needed to travel and there were no means of travel available at the time I needed them. I have had to prove my worth in several jobs I have had, have had to work commission instead of salary to get a decent income, have had job assignments that really no woman should have to do but I did them. I have been paid a lower salary because I was married and had a husband to help with expenses.

Can I show personal or material damages for any of that? Of course not. I accept that we are people living in an imperfect world that is going to get it wrong from time to time which is a fact of all of human history. As a people we change our views and attitudes as time passes and we try to stop doing things badly and replace them with doing things more constructively.

To pay all black people reparations for a culture that existed 60 or more years ago while ignoring all the other injustices that happened to other people is just dumb and pandering in a way that will harm black people for generations if the race baiters succeed in this insane policy.

Again. I’m not arguing to pay all Black people reparations (I think I’ve said this multiple times now).

 

[noonereal]

Whites got reparations for the Civil War and blacks fought in that war. It is appoarent that whites didn't fight to free us because after the war the started Jim Crow. And so if you would like to try this argument then whites got reparations in the form of the homestead acts along with war payments.

Wtf are you talking about? What reparations did whats get. I am still waiting on my check. Also, still waiting on my thank you from the black community.

 

[Coyote]

Wtf are you talking about? What reparations did whats get. I am still waiting on my check. Also, still waiting on my thank you from the black community.

Thank you for what?

 

[Foxfyre]

Again. I’m not arguing to pay all Black people reparations (I think I’ve said this multiple times now).

You're arguing for all black people who were alive during the Jim Crow era to receive reparations whether or not they were harmed in any way by those laws. And that is simply absurd almost as much as those who think all black people should receive reparations just because they're black.

 

[IM2]

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

There is no such place here..

 

[JoeB131]

ONE member of my sort-of family - a man who married my grandmother when I was in my teens in the 1970s and lived only about five years after that - got a piddly reparations for having to subsist on vegetation and insects for TWO years while he fought with the partisans, and lost his first wife and son to Hitler. He survived, but barely, and suffered lifelong and severe physical problems as a result. How DARE you compare his suffering and loss to Jim Crowe!!

Boo-fucking hoo. My dad had nightmares for the rest of his life for what he went through in WWII. WWII was bad for everyone.

The rest of my family, on both sides, didn’t receive a penny, even thought the loss was great on both sides. No, my parents moved from the tenement slums to the middle-class suburbs in the span of 10 years due to their drive, discipline, intelligence, and good values - the SAME as the blacks in their class.

Yes, white privilege is nice. Awesome that you want to pull up the ladder after you made it.

You aren’t doing blacks any favor by pretending that Jews, in the midst of the Holocaust and not knowing if their relatives were dead or alive, became successful due to reparations. They became successful for the traits I listed above.

They became successful because they came to a country that doesn't care what imaginary sky fairy you worship as long as you are white.

 

[Coyote]

You're arguing for all black people who were alive during the Jim Crow era to receive reparations whether or not they were harmed in any way by those laws. And that is simply absurd almost as much as those who think all black people should receive reparations just because they're black.

No it isn’t. It is a very specific group of people that lived under those laws, so quit saying “all Black people”.