Sort of, but they are also provided to poor whites. And poor hispanics. And poor Asians, etc. I don’t think you can consider that reparations for slavery if everyone gets it.
If I follow your hypothesis correctly, it would appear that it predicts that drug use should be more prevalent among blacks than among whites. Well, drug incarceration is certainly more prevalent. I’m not sure about usage though:
Emphasis added. From “The Relationship Between Adolescent Risky Behaviors and Family Environment”. I kept the irrelevant stuff about sex and crime to illustrate the complexity of the relationship between risky behaviors and race. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/riskybehav01/chapt4.htm
Empirical reality can be surprising, so surprising that it resists a neat and convenient narrative. Sorry I don’t have the facts for the adult population.
Squish wrote:
“Why not sue the governments of Gambia and other West African nations? It was, after all, their tribal leaders who sold slaves to the white traders in the first place. Indeed, according to some accounts, many of them still keep slaves.”
Because
1- they’re broke
2- they don’t have enough telecommunication lines to give Louis “the Charmer” Farrakhan the spotlight he so richly deserves. (I think cameras placed in his house would be a really cool Osbournes like show for BET or al-Jazeera.)
Most of my ancestors were poor white Southern farmers who owned no slaves but still sent their sons to war. Another branch was the stereotypical magnolia and Corinthian column slave owning ilk who sent their sons to Richmond to serve in the CSA Congress (which had in many ways a brilliant constitution, incidentally). So does that mean I owe some money for the plantation folk but get a rebate on the others?
Serious quandry: my slaveowning ancestors held human beings as property at a time when to do so was, regardless of its moral implications, absolutely legal. They continued to hold them when the land they lived in exercised its constitutional right to secede from the American union in order to form a separate souvereignty in which slavery was unequivocally legal. Their slaves were lost through an act of aggression by a foreign nation with no rights to dictate policy in Alabama and Georgia.
Assuming that the value of the slaves “liberated” by the USA was $30,000 (that’s figuring a conservative $500 for 60 slaves), this would be well over $1 million in current market value, plus millions more in accrued interest. Should I have as much legal right to sue the US Gov’t for this money as the descendants of the slaves to sue for reparations? I honestly don’t see a flaw in this logic.
Of course to me the answer is very obvious: pay Farrakhan and his crew their millions, but pay it in Confederate money.
(Irrelevant but interesting [if only to me] side story: Near where I live, Farrakhan gave a speech commending the exemplary virtues of the local Nuwaubian cult in returning to Afrocentric values. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have both spoken at the same cult compound as well, holding this sect up as a pillar of light in the spiritual desert of America. Currently, the leader of the sect, Malachi Z [aka Khalid Muhammad, aka many others] is in prison awaiting trial on dozens of counts of aggravated sexual assault of minors; Malachi Z is the father of more than 100 children and has been stockpiling weapons for more than two decades.)
Makes perfect sense to me; you should also get reparations for the generations of relative poverty caused by the War of Northern Aggression.
The New York drug laws (so-called Rockefeller Laws) have been amended twice since 1973. The last change in 1988, the one that differentiated greatly in the sentences for crack versus powder, happened around the same time that the feds enacted the 100-1 law.
For those of you who are not aware of said law, the penalty for possession of 5 grams of crack is the same as the penalty for 500 grams of the powdered stuff, 5 years. As crack is a predominantly urban drug, while powder is predominantly an upper-class drug, there are many who are (rightfully?) crying foul. The US Sentencing Guidelines Commission (correct agency name?) has twice recommended that Congress change this discrepancy, but has been ignored by large numbers of representatives in both parties.
I don’t know whether it’s PC to say it or not, but it’s still flat out wrong. Almost every study you will find shows that drug usage is almost perfectly proportionate between blacks and whites. If whites and blacks were arrested at equal rates, based on drug usage, possession, etc., there would be about 8-9 whites in prison on drug charges for every black. Also, very large scale sting operations occur in inner cities, not in the suburbs, capturing a disproportionate number of minorities. (raiding a meth lab in the burbs is not a large scale sting, by the way). I will gladly provide cites for this, provided you are willing to apologize to the minorities on this board for making such an implication.
As for the reparation issue, contrary to what you might believe, I’m not for cutting a check to everyone with black skin. I would like to see reparations in a much different form, such as scholarships for inner city children, etc.
As to the OP’s two questions:
-
None.
-
Most lazy people don’t make long treks to demonstrate for something that is highly unlikely to ever happen, regardless of whether it should or not. Did you have a different definition of lazy?
Farrakhan (who I’m not particularly fond of) kicked Muhammad out in 1993 after making racist remarks towards Jews and others. As for Khalid Muhammad being in prison on the charges you claim or even the current leader of any sect, can I get a cite? It’d be kind of funny if he got a life sentence or the death penalty.
Check the scholarships listed online for any major university and you’ll see that there are more scholarships available for ethnic minorities than there are for whites, and that among those that have no minority preference, there are more for females than for males.
Ok, those of us who are less than violently opposed to the idea of reparations have all been tarred with the words of a few extremists who spoke Saturday, do I get to ask how those of you who are opposed to reparations feel about the ignorant bigotry displayed by the OP and by several other posters (here, and in this thread, especially 'uigi) opposed to reparations?
'Cause I’ve seen plenty of people who are pro reparations, or on the fence like I am, who have stated that the statements of the extremists at the march were wrong, but none of y’all who oppose reparations feel the need to distance yourselves from bigots like as the world burns, Joe Cool etc…
Actually, I’m not likely to find many scholarships that are specific to caucasions (although there are some), as most scholarships aren’t based on ethnicity, and the ones that are are generally for various minorities, who have historically been less likely to be able to attend college than their white counterparts, for a variety of reasons.
I’m still not sure what that has to do with anything, as we didn’t bring over white people on boats so they could be our slaves, but perhaps you’ll clarify.
Clarification: you said that you would like to see scholarships for inner-city children. I responded to that by noting that many, if not most scholarships, are already earmarked specifically for minorities.
Neither did any of my ancestors. Isn’t it just as racist to make statements about “all whites” as it is about “all blacks”?
Oh, BTW, Roots had it wrong: white traders didn’t go running through the African countryside rounding up stray teenagers. Black tribal leaders sold slaves to white traders.
Like I said: sue Gambia for reparations.
Just out of curiosity, who exactly has created the condition in which they live? Other than cable TV, the internet, and some consumer electronics the word is pretty much as I found it in 1971 and I didn’t have much to do with those three things. So just what kind of meaningless glib crap are you spouting? Or do you mean that all whites are responsible for the actions of all other whites, even those long dead ones? If thats your opinion, then does it work both ways? Does it work in specific circumstances? Like say some person murdered a relative of mine about 200 years back, can I go hit up the murderer’s descendants for reparations or just kill them outright in the name of justice?
Also, my non-black uncle who was a sever dope fiend/addict will be glad to know that while he is 100% responsible for his own addiction, black junkies are only partially responsible for theirs.
Whites in this country have paid reparations already. The fact that black Americans are just now coming into power in terms of cultural influence demonstrates over 200 years of loss to the arts and humanities for all Americans, whites and non-whites alike. As a minor example do you know how man sci-fi authors there are in the U.S.? Do you know how many are black men? One, one black man in an entire genre. What aobut film, the graphic arts, poetry, etc. The fact is that our nation could have produced another Whitman, or Clemens had we mainstreamed freedmen or never had slaves to begin with. It’s already our loss. Not only is depriving people of money unfair in it’s ignorance of personal history (going to make descendants of Chineese immigrants pay too? Does the term “coolie” mean anything?) but it is redundant as the aftereffects of slavery are a negative to the opressed and the opressor alike.
If this argument is based on the effort of attending last weekend’s rally, it doesn’t work. According to the AP, the attendnce was in the hundreds.
(Lest I be misunderstood, I am not accusing those who didn’t attend of being lazy. On the contrary, I think they simply used good judgment.)
I responded by saying that I did the research you requested of me, found your statement to be in error and responded accordiingly with the results of what I found, namely that most scholarships seem to not be based on ethnicity. Since my research shows me otherwise, and you made the initial claim without any evidence, I’m going to have to ask you to back up the claim. From what I could find, most scholarships are academic or athletic in nature.
It’s not racist to say that whites weren’t brought over on boats to be our slaves. Saying that blacks should thank us for bringing their forefathers over (which is an opinion held by some on this board) is racist in my opinion. If you are saying that you found a racist statement of mine, feel free to share where that was. If not, what was this all about?
While I have reason to believe your statement isn’t 100% accurate, i.e. that no slave was ever accosted by a white trader without a chieftan as go-between, I’m not sure what that matters. If you are trying to weight the culpability between white slave owners and black tribal chieftans, I’m sure most blacks would be fine with that. I’d be willing to bet that there were a large number of white slave owners for every corrupt chieftan.
Once again, would you care to share what that has to do with the discussion?
You know, I understand that saying blacks got a raw deal in this country for a long time doesn’t even come close to explaining it. And I know that as a middle-class white guy I’m never going to fully understand or appreciate the crap that was shoveled onto blacks in this country. However, I have a serious problem with having to pay reparitions for crimes I did not commit. I mean, it’s not like I am rich from the fruits of the labors of the slaves of my ancestors or anything.
My father grew up in the poorest of poor sections of Greenbelt, MD. If you were from that part of town you had two career paths you could follow: career criminal or police officer. My dad decided to get in on the whole computer thing, which was just coming around in the late 60’s and early 70’s. As a result of his hard work, I now live fairly comfortably.
Now, everything my family has we worked for and earned. Why should I be forced to pay an increase in taxes for something for which I never did? I’ve never held anyone back due to the color of their skin. I’ve never bought or sold anyone on a slave market (incidentally, neither has anyone alive in America today). Is it really fair to ask me, someone who had nothing to do with slavery or the prejudice that blacks had to deal with for so long, to pay out money for these crimes?
As a small aside, I would venture a guess that the reason a lot of white people are complaining that blacks are “just looking for a hand out” with this is that they are asking for a cash payment instead of something like a free college education so they could go out and make their own living and be a productive member of society. Not necessarily my opinion, but I think that may be where some of the hostility arises from.
Why doesn’t that work? If a single person showed up to demonstrate for reparations, my statement still stands. What does the turnout have to do with the OP’s second question or my answer to it?
You were understood quite well.
Was Uncle Sa selling crack? (http://www.mdle.com/WrittenWord/rholhut/holhut45.htm)
``thousands of young black men are serving long prison sentences for selling cocaine, a drug virtually unobtainable in black neighborhoods before members of the CIA’s army brought it into South Central in the 1980s at bargain-basement prices.’’ While white Americans consume 80 percent of the illegal drugs and about half of the crack, black Americans make up 74 percent of those sentenced to prison for drug possession."
Just as smoking Opium was made illegal in Canada because of anti-Asian hostility, marijuana was cracked down upon because of visible Hispanic and black users (as well as a Narcotics division in need of funding), crack has become the “poor black man’s drug”, and has been treated accordingly harsh. No, no one’s putting pipes in people’s hands, but once they’re there, chances of being both arrested and charged are greater if the user is a minority.
I’m still not sure how reparations would work. As others asked, who would be paying? The descendants of African tribesemen who sold the slaves? The government aka the taxpayers? Would black people have to pay? What about mixed people- would they both pay the tax and receive the money? Handing out cheques will not magically change people’s lives. One need only look to Native reserves and find the animosity rising between those who live in trailers and their mansion-dwelling neighbours. School funding, neighbourhood programs, clean water, etc. should be provided to all people who go without.
If the American government wants to make a statement about slavery, how about having a “war against slavery”? They could make African diamonds illegal, and ban the use of child/slave labour in the production of clothing, etc. (when Politically Incorrect was still on, a guest was adamantly supporting reparations while wearing head-to-toe Nike)
(of course, I meant Uncle Sam. My ‘m’ key is a poor student)
So, you think the CIA has nothing better to do than put crack cocaine into black communities? Did I miss something here or what?
I’m still not sure what that has to do with anything, as we didn’t bring over white people on boats so they could be our slaves, but perhaps you’ll clarify.
That’s not entirely true. My ancestors came from Ireland sold into slavery as indentured servants. Some spent generations getting free from this servitude, if ever. This type of slavery was practiced far longer than the one we are discussing now. I don’t have the numbers available but there were HUGE numbers of white people in this country that were enslaved as well as oriental, hispanic and others as well. They just don’t bitch about it as much. Matter of fact Ireland is still in turmoil. Many people all over the world suffer from oppression. Much of it can be attributed to their ancestral heritage.
I’m not going on a rant…but it’s bullshit, stand up and be counted, quit blaming gggranpa for your problems and stop looking for a fucking handout. I don’t have it!
I would appreciate a cite for this, especially the part about “generations”. I was always under the belief that indentured servitude was 1) temporary and 2)somewhat voluntary in that it provided a means of paying off a debt or crime. These two things–if true–would make indentured servitude vastly different than chattel slavery.
Woop-tee-doo. Give all those wonderful stoics a glorious round of applause. :rolleyes:
I’m wondering what this has to do with the topic at hand…
When interned Japanese Americans received reparations, the money came out of tax-payers dollars. So yes, they would have to “pay”.
…while issuing an formal apology for its own use of the institution. I’d be all for that.
We paid the interned Japanese Americans back in 1992. Did you commit that crime?
This makes absolutely no sense to me, and I’m not being purposefully snarky. Can you explain again how whites–and only whites–have paid reparations?