Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No doubt you'll deny this as well.Saying “You benefitted…” is not trying. That’s just repeating talking points.
But your parents benefitted from Jim Crow, so you did too. And you do have something to do with this:
Citygroup did a study focusing on U.S. GDP from 2000 until 2020. The study revealed huge losses in GDP due to continuing discrimination against blacks in business revenue, education, housing credit, and income. The study determined that since the year 2000, continuing discriminatory practices in the four areas mentioned in the prior sentence resulted in a loss of 16 trillion dollars in GDP. The breakdown is as follows:
“Closing the Black racial wage gap 20 years ago might have provided an additional $2.7 trillion in income available for consumption and investment.
Improving access to housing credit might have added an additional 770,000 Black homeowners over the last 20 years, with combined sales and expenditures adding another $218 billion to GDP over that time.
Facilitating increased access to higher education (college, graduate, and vocational schools) for Black students might have bolstered lifetime incomes that in aggregate sums to $90 to $113 billion.
Providing fair and equitable lending to Black entrepreneurs might have resulted in the creation of an additional $13 trillion in business revenue over the last 20 years. This could have been used for investments in labor, technology, capital equipment, and structures and 6.1 million jobs might have been created per year.”
Dana M Peterson, Catherine L Mann, Closing the Racial Inequality Gaps, The Economic Cost of Black Inequality in the U.S., pg. 4, Institutional Clients Group
Do you think handing money to individuals is going to change the disadvantages that their "people", whoever they are, are suffering now?
Then America should acknowledge it.America can never afford that this side of eternity
Give a black woman some money and she buys a home for her family.
Maybe. And then what? You push up house prices, and the black people who didn't get reparations, or the young adults of the future won't stand a chance. Because you didn't invest in them becoming equal with everyone else, you just got someone to buy their own home. And that's if they decide to buy their own home. Maybe they decide to just gamble it away, or go on a binge.
Some people will be sensible, but a LOT OF POOR PEOPLE are poor because they make BAD DECISIONS WITH MONEY. My sister had a boyfriend who was poor, and useless. She broke up with him, and was going to move out of their apartment. He couldn't afford to stay there, but someone beat him up and he got a payout of money for it. So.... he bought a playstation or something, rather than keep the money so he could actually have somewhere to live. That's the sort of people we're talking here.
You may be correct. However, there are group after group who were not treated right either. There are groups that are white where things did not get better for them until the 1950's. With all of the brouhaha on sites like this, I want all people to do well. It's good for us all. We have massive uneven middle-class distortions in salaries and benefits and pensions though. For true compassion we must realize are limits on wealth with a growing socialist government. So, we will not adjust downward the privileged unions over the unions not so much and those who work and toil for much less even though they may work harder.I think blacks were mistreated well into the 1960s i mean jim crow, and all that, it didnt end with slavery though. Just my two cents, even today we see that blacks disadvantaged, no one thinks that might be a inheritance from how they were marginalised and disfrenchised, do you think it is only because they are "dumb" (I read many whites who think that though).
Lol.Reparations at the time of emancipation makes perfect sense, and would have made sense. Reparations now makes no sense. No living ex-slaves or slave owners.
You have a family housed.Maybe. And then what?
None of us whites stole land from anyone. If whites today live on stolen land, so do you. What are blacks today denied that whites have? This is 2023. Quit dwelling on the past and expecting something you didn’t suffer from.Whites have recieved direct government economic assistance on several occasions, the majority of government habouts, welfare, farm, oil, corporate subsidies got to whites. White immigrants got free land after the Civil War, destroyed black towns, neighborhoods and farms. Blacks were excluded from New Deal money, denied government backs home loans, as well as GI Bill money for college or to start businesses.
You stole the land from native americans Jethro. Apparently whites aren't smart enough to get jobs without government help.
There really wasn't an "end" to slavery, but the Slave States had lost control of the Federal Government and it was made plain to the slave owners that there would be no new states where slavery was legal. The control they had worked so hard to get through the three fifths rule was gone forever. The Slave States could see their relevance getting less and less so they seceded while they thought they could get away with it.There was no 'official' end of slavery before secession. Which alternative history have you read?
The US economy WASN'T built on the "back of unpaid slave labor". The South's economy was, but the majority of the economic success in even the infant USA came from trade and manufacturing in the North. Slavery made a very few people very rich in the South but did little for anyone else. It actually made things worse for most southern whites who couldn't compete with slave labor.You are a citizen of the US, I assume, whose economic base was built on the back of unpaid slave labour. The economic base from which you and your ancestors benefited. As opposed to slaves and their descendents who were excluded from that economy.
A lot of generalities there, but the act was restricted to DC which was a very small town in 1862. It had a total population of 75,000 people, of which 3,000 were slaves. Lincoln was a pragmatist at heart, the only thing important to him was the maintenance of the Union. He compromised by paying the handful of slave owners in DC towards that end because he needed their political support and wanted to deny it to the Confederacy which was right across the river.Lol.
When Slaveowners Got Reparations
Lincoln signed a bill in 1862 that paid up to $300 for every enslaved person freed.aas.princeton.edu
On April 16, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill emancipating enslaved people in Washington, the end of a long struggle. But to ease slaveowners’ pain, the District of Columbia Emancipation Act paid those loyal to the Union up to $300 for every enslaved person freed.That’s right, slaveowners got reparations. Enslaved African-Americans got nothing for their generations of stolen bodies, snatched children and expropriated labor other than their mere release from legal bondage.
1) Just barely 50% of Black Americans have any decedents of American slavery.I think blacks were mistreated well into the 1960s i mean jim crow, and all that, it didnt end with slavery though. Just my two cents, even today we see that blacks disadvantaged, no one thinks that might be a inheritance from how they were marginalised and disfrenchised, do you think it is only because they are "dumb" (I read many whites who think that though).
The US economy WASN'T built on the "back of unpaid slave labor". The South's economy was, but the majority of the economic success in even the infant USA came from trade and manufacturing in the North. Slavery made a very few people very rich in the South but did little for anyone else. It actually made things worse for most southern whites who couldn't compete with slave labor.
Right.None of us whites stole land from anyone.
So we can pretend it didn't really happen. Fair enough.A lot of generalities there, but the act was restricted to DC which was a very small town in 1862. It had a total population of 75,000 people, of which 3,000 were slaves. Lincoln was a pragmatist at heart, the only thing important to him was the maintenance of the Union. He compromised by paying the handful of slave owners in DC towards that end because he needed their political support and wanted to deny it to the Confederacy which was right across the river.
No, you were compensated for your labour.I want reparations!
I was enslaved (drafted) back in 1970 and missed out on all kinds of opportunities because of it!
