Zone1 Broad-brush reparations to all blacks is unconstituional

[el midgetron]

I've got a degree in history from the University of Illinois...

Then use it. Arguing your credentials on the internet is pointless. Anyone can claim anything they want. Your argument needs to stand on its own two feet. If it can’t do that then your degree means squat.

Again, still not as bad as the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.

And you needed a degree to make that claim? You make a claim, offer zero supporting evidence or even any reasoning and in the touted wisdom of your academic-training you think that makes a convincing argument?

Is your degree in the history of lesbian dance?

 

[JoeB131]

Then use it. Arguing your credentials on the internet is pointless. Anyone can claim anything they want. Your argument needs to stand on its own two feet. If it can’t do that then your degree means squat.

I am,

I just don't waste my time on Racist Apologetics like 'Well, other people had slaves, so that makes our slave abuses okay, then. " It's a stupid argument.

 

[el midgetron]

I am,

I just don't waste my time on Racist Apologetics like 'Well, other people had slaves, so that makes our slave abuses okay, then. " It's a stupid argument.

That’s it? That’s all your education got you? An ad hominem attack and a straw man argument? When I was a kid we didn’t need a degree to call someone a name and misrepresent their argument.

 

[JoeB131]

That’s it? That’s all your education got you? An ad hominem attack and a straw man argument? When I was a kid we didn’t need a degree to call someone a name and misrepresent their argument.

Actually, you'd have to have a point to argue, and all I get out of you is the usual race nonsense we get from racists who didn't realize the lost the conversation decades ago.

 

[Coyote]

Again, still not as bad as the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. But it also has nothing to do with why black people in this country deserve reparations.

This kind of deflection seems rampant in any argument regarding slavery, the legacy of slavery, or Jim Crowe or reparations.

Basically…it boils down to “other countries/peoples did it too”…or were worse...or people of the same race did it to their race.

AND here we go again.

When we, the United States, interred Japanese Americans, we were hardly unique in doing this both historically and currently. For example: Chinese treatment of Uighurs (“re-education” camps, Myanmar’s treatment of the Rohinga, the British interred Boers during the second Boer war, Americans interred Philippinos during the Philippine American War, the British in Kenya durging the Mau-Mau rebellion, the Soviet Gulag system….and more).

Yet UNLIKE reparations …no one made these arguments opposing reparations for interred Japanese Americans.

Again…a blatant double standard here.

 

[martybegan]

This kind of deflection seems rampant in any argument regarding slavery, the legacy of slavery, or Jim Crowe or reparations.

Basically…it boils down to “other countries/peoples did it too”…or were worse...or people of the same race did it to their race.

AND here we go again.

When we, the United States, interred Japanese Americans, we were hardly unique in doing this both historically and currently. For example: Chinese treatment of Uighurs (“re-education” camps, Myanmar’s treatment of the Rohinga, the British interred Boers during the second Boer war, Americans interred Philippinos during the Philippine American War, the British in Kenya durging the Mau-Mau rebellion, the Soviet Gulag system….and more).

Yet UNLIKE reparations …no one made these arguments opposing reparations for interred Japanese Americans.

Again…a blatant double standard here.

Because what was done was blatantly unconstitutional and it resulted in US Citizens being deprived of their property. And we only paid back those we directly interred and forced to sell their homes and businesses.

It was also a direct federal policy, not federal neglect.

 

[JoeB131]

Because what was done was blatantly unconstitutional and it resulted in US Citizens being deprived of their property. And we only paid back those we directly interred and forced to sell their homes and businesses.

It was also a direct federal policy, not federal neglect.

But the federal government was still responsible for 1) Allowing Slavery to be legal in 1787 and 2) Allowing Jim Crow to evolve after the Civil War because they couldn't be bothered making sure the inbreds in the south played nice.

seems like they still failed in their responsibility and we owe black folks something.

Frankly, I was against reparations, but talking to the racists on this thread, I'm starting to rethink that.

 

[Coyote]

Because what was done was blatantly unconstitutional and it resulted in US Citizens being deprived of their property. And we only paid back those we directly interred and forced to sell their homes and businesses.

It was also a direct federal policy, not federal neglect.

Jim Crowe wasn’t blatently unconstitutional?

The federal government ALLOWED the states to remove Constitutional rights from a group of citizens based solely on skin color.

Yes, we only paid those actually interred, which is why I have been arguing reparations only for people who lived under Jim Crowe yet people keep throwing the slavery strawman up.

 

[Coyote]

But the federal government was still responsible for 1) Allowing Slavery to be legal in 1787 and 2) Allowing Jim Crow to evolve after the Civil War because they couldn't be bothered making sure the inbreds in the south played nice.

seems like they still failed in their responsibility and we owe black folks something.

Frankly, I was against reparations, but talking to the racists on this thread, I'm starting to rethink that.

I can see rational arguments pro and con but this debate has opened my eyes a good bit.

What I don’t like is a double standard in the arguments that support one and oppose the other. The main reason (to me) is that one hits on the very complicated history of race in this country and the cultural legacy still evident today.

Look how readily some of the arguments (not all) play into tropes and stereotypes that are used to justify not giving or selectively giving reparations to one racial group…but not the other. Tropes like “grifter”, “lazy”, implications that they just want free handouts. None of which were directed at Japanese Americans.

For example, we gave reparations to ALL living Japanese Americans who were interred, but apply unique standards when it comes to reparations to all living African Americans who lived under Jim Crowe.

• They must individually prove direct harm.
• They are excluded from reparation if they received a free college education or assistance from government.
• They are excluded from reparations if they managed to be successful despite Jim Crowe.
• Reparations should only be applied to those living directly in Jim Crowe states despite the fact that those laws affected every Black American in the country by curtailing the basic Constitutional rights and freedoms every American has…based solely on race.

 

[el midgetron]

Actually, you'd have to have a point to argue, and all I get out of you is the usual race nonsense we get from racists who didn't realize the lost the conversation decades ago.

Except you have acknowledged my point that the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade and not rare or unique, remember? You just disagree with my point and seem unable to really support your position in any meaningful way.

 

[JoeB131]

Except you have acknowledged my point that the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade and not rare or unique, remember?

I did nothing of the sort.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I've got a degree in history from the University of Illinois... What do you have, besides crippling racism?




Again, still not as bad as the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. But it also has nothing to do with why black people in this country deserve reparations.


You're kidding, right? Do you ever wonder why black skin tones vary so much in this country? It's because their white masters raped their ancestors on a regular basis.

That is rape, but the "slave breeding" that IM2 always complains about was slaves having children with other slaves, NOT masters breeding with their slaves. The white birth rate was far higher than the black birth rate in those days. All you have to do is to look at the census figures to see that.

 

[Libby von H]

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

Threa are now milliions of inter-racial marriages ,so you give reparations to the Black member and reward the descendant of slavers they married. yeah, did you even think this through. You sound like Elizabeth Warren

 

[JoeB131]

That is rape, but the "slave breeding" that IM2 always complains about was slaves having children with other slaves, NOT masters breeding with their slaves. The white birth rate was far higher than the black birth rate in those days. All you have to do is to look at the census figures to see that.

Do you think the slave-owners reported all their slaves to the Census bureau in those days. I was a Census taker in 2000 and 2010.... and even with our modern technology, it's a pain in the ass.

The thing is when you don't have CONSENT involved, it's rape, and that means a master screwing his slave or directing slaves to screw each other to make more baby slaves to sell.

The whole thing sounds... kind of awful. We should probably have some kind of reparation for that.

 

[el midgetron]

I did nothing of the sort.

Well then my scholarly friend, now you know.

Nowhere near as bad as the Transatlantic trade, even according to your own source.

 

[JoeB131]

Well then my scholarly friend, now you know.

No, guy, you really haven't made a case that the attrocity that was the trans-atlantic slave trade wasn't anything other than one of the worst crimes against humanity, ever.

 

[el midgetron]

No, guy, you really haven't made a case that the attrocity that was the trans-atlantic slave trade wasn't anything other than one of the worst crimes against humanity, ever.

Yes I have. I even provided support for my argument unlike you.

All the rape, torture, death and horror of the transatlantic slave trade existed in the other slave trades in Africa centuries before the trans Atlantic slave trade. Just because your gender studies prof never told you about the historic realities of slavery, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Do you think the slave-owners reported all their slaves to the Census bureau in those days. I was a Census taker in 2000 and 2010.... and even with our modern technology, it's a pain in the ass.

The thing is when you don't have CONSENT involved, it's rape, and that means a master screwing his slave or directing slaves to screw each other to make more baby slaves to sell.

The whole thing sounds... kind of awful. We should probably have some kind of reparation for that.

Actually they did. Their slaves were a critical part of the political power the slave states maintained up until northern immigration finally overpowered the three fifths compromise in the late eighteen fifties.

The owners didn't have to "direct" their slaves to have families, all they had to do was to NOT forbid it and let nature take its course.

 

[martybegan]

But the federal government was still responsible for 1) Allowing Slavery to be legal in 1787 and 2) Allowing Jim Crow to evolve after the Civil War because they couldn't be bothered making sure the inbreds in the south played nice.

seems like they still failed in their responsibility and we owe black folks something.

Frankly, I was against reparations, but talking to the racists on this thread, I'm starting to rethink that.

I might as well bitch about some English Lord razing Castle Began 300 years ago, or the Papal States for ruling over Naples for centuries.

Figures you change your mind just to piss off the rational people you despise.

 

[martybegan]

Jim Crowe wasn’t blatently unconstitutional?

The federal government ALLOWED the states to remove Constitutional rights from a group of citizens based solely on skin color.

Yes, we only paid those actually interred, which is why I have been arguing reparations only for people who lived under Jim Crowe yet people keep throwing the slavery strawman up.

Not until Brown corrected Plessey.

Jim Crow was fixed. And the reparations we gave the Internees wasn't the millions per person the black reparations idiots were talking about.