Regarding the blacks marching for reparations tomorrow...

The “temporary” nature of indentured servitude was largely meaningless when fully half of them died of disease, abuse, hunger and exhaustion before their terms of indenture were up. When Cromwell sent 30,000 Irish to the Caribbean as slaves, almost none of them lived more than a few years, so brutal were the conditions under which they lived. Convicts were known to beg to be hanged rather than sent to the American colonies.

The “voluntary” aspect was likewise a joke. Many were simply kidnapped by men known as “crimps” or “spirits,” and their contracts were blatant forgeries. Others were simply lied to; they had no idea what horrible lives awaited them in the New World. Many were children deceived into signing contracts with offers of candy. Children in poor neighborhoods were literally snatched off the streets by the dozens in raiding parties by the crimps and spirits, a practice known as “kid nabbing” from which the modern word “kidnapping” is derived. Prisoners and beggars who had been “contracted” for indentured servitude by the state were often imprisoned in the ships that would take them to America because they were too likely to run away before the ship sailed. Fully a quarter of the Britons who came to North America before the Revolution were convicts. (And bear in mind that the convicts were often guilty of nothing worse than such things as stealing bread to ease their hunger.) Once in the colonies, they were auctioned off; families were broken up with little possibility of ever seeing each other again. White slaves (and they were frequently referred to as slaves; there was no clear distinction between “servant” and “slave” in the language of the time) were chained together in coffles and marched through the countryside by peddlers who sold them off one by one to farmers.

You can find examples of indentured servants who were treated tolerably well by the standards of the times, just as you can find examples of slaves in the antebellum South who were treated decently by their masters. But most of them were brutally exploited and had little choice in the matter.

And the suffering of indentured servants in America is only a fraction of the suffering endured by the poor and working classes of the Western world. Consider this:

About the middle of the seventeeth century, the owner of a British chemical factory was in need of workers. To meet this need, he went to different orphanages and poor houses and bought a thousand or so children. (Yes, you read that right–poor whites could be bought and sold in Britain.) Only a few years after putting them to work in his factory, ** almost all of them had died from the brutal working conditions.**

Understand something. If you had gone to this factory owner and asked him, “You mean you knowingly sent children to work under conditions so horrible that almost all of them were certain to die in a few years?” he would simply have given you a funny look and said, “Sure. What’s your point?” The masters did not care if the lives they destroyed were black or white; all that mattered was the money to be made. You can say whatever you please, I see little important difference between a twelve-year-old black child being worked to death in a sugar cane field and a twelve-year-old white child being worked to death in a mine or a factory. Your ancestors were chattel slaves. Mine were wage slaves. As both suffered horribly, the distinction was often moot.

To deny the suffering of poor and working class whites over the last five centuries is not merely callous, it is monstrous. You chose your screen name well.

Because the suffering of blacks seems to be held as something so absolutely unique, so completely different from that of any other group that they are somehow entitled to special consideration and privileges. It is not just whites who resent this attitude. In the specific case of reparations, some blacks are saying blacks in general ought to receive compensation for events six or seven generations past to be paid by people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the original offense–and they seem to care nothing about the injustice of this. (And please, before someone raises the point, don’t bother telling me the money will be paid by corporations and the government. Are you really so naive as to believe those costs won’t be passed on in one way or another to consumers and taxpayers, many of whom are every bit as desperately poor as any urban black?)

I am glad you see the impracticality of it. I just wish I could make you see the injustice of it.

Go stufff it if you aren’t willing to learn some history

Ooh, you showed me. Come on, smiling bandit, if you know US history to the degree that you claim, you know that whites in America simply haven’t experienced the degree of abuse and persecution that blacks and Native Americans have. Even Irish Catholics were not defined as second class citizens under law the way that free blacks were.

If you want to talk about history outside of the US, feel free. But events outside of the US are not what’s at issue here.

I didn’t imply that you were a racist. If I want to call you a racist, I will. I’ll say, “Smiling bandit, you racist!” or something to b that effect.(It sounds a bit melodramatic, so I’ll probably never say it quite that way.)

I have noticed, on this reparations thread, and a variety of others, that posters will dredge up every anti-black stereotype as justification for oppostion to reparations.

I oppose reparations for practical reasons. The focus on reparations will take time and energy away from real problems facing black Americans. Of course, remedies that focus exclusively on blacks are not practical. Any effective remedies would have to help the urban poor and isolated rural poor without regard to ethnicity.

Over the past 25 years or so, black Americans have consistently demonstrated a willingness to live among whites, to marry whites, to send their children to school with whites, to work with whites etc. So programs that are based on the idea of black Americans as a separate people will gradually become less and less useful.

The whole question of what kind of help to provide is quite complex. “Help” may mean refusing to hire public school teachers who can’t master basic skills. It may mean automatic expulsion from school for violent acts. Both of these measures have been opposed, incidentally, by the NAACP. “Help” may mean making poor neighborhoods safer by coming down extra hard on street crime.

It’s clear that a great deal of poverty can be alleviated by making sure that people wait until they’re finished with school, gainfully employed, and married, before they start having kids. Helping people to do this may be seen as unfairly stigmatizing single mothers, or denying individuals freedom of choice.

Ptooey. You don’t know what you’re talking about. In the Old South, black slaves (and not just the house servants) were encouraged to look down upon and despise the “white trash.” There was even a song popular among slaves which had the refrain, “I’d rather be a nigguh than a po’ white man.” Really dirty and dangerous jobs weren’t done by slaves. Slaves were valuable property not to be risked for such work. Poor whites, often immigrant Irish, were hired at dirt cheap wages to do the labor that might get a man killed. One traveler in the South described slaves standing on the deck of a ship tossing heavy crates down into the hold, laughing as they deliberately tried to hit the Irish who were working there. Their masters did nothing to restrain them.

A slave’s life at least had some value. The life of a poor white didn’t. Slaves often had better food, clothing and shelter than poor whites, and masters were legally and morally responsible for caring for slaves when they were too old or sick to work. Many poor whites were reduced to second class citizenship with no rights that needed to be respected. The laws that took the right to vote away from blacks, such as literacy or land ownership requirements, often took it away from poor whites as well. There were plenty of whites who got lynched.

The picture just isn’t as simple as you want it to be, and you aren’t seeing things clearly at all. Try to understand that * Roots * is every bit as much of an idealized, romantic fantasy as * Gone with the Wind. *

What belowjob sees as hostility to blacks in this thread–although I haven’t seen it here–is in my estimation in response to the hostility shown by the comments made by blacks involved in the march and by a similar hostility towards whites evidenced by some posters on this board.

LonesomePolecat has a good grasp of history and an eloquence that I lacked, but that I think supports my earlier statement that there is not, nor ever was, a monolithic Black America and a monolithic White America.

And let’s not forget the riots in which Irish immigrants beat and killed blacks (and other minorities) because they wanted their jobs and didn’t want to fight a war. While often the police did nothing to restrain them.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/draftriots.htm

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpedu/features/immig/irish6.html

http://www.friesian.com/discrim.htm

You seem to be saying, Lonesome, that blacks don’t deserve reparations because others–like the Irish–endured a similar or worse oppression. Even if this is true (and I still insist that it isn’t), so what? If these Americans can make a claim for reparations, they should go for it. If they don’t want them, fine. But their situation has nothing to do with black Americans. They are independent entities. Got it?

Yes. Three-fifths of a human’s value. While poor whites may have been viewed as less-than-white, they were never quite viewed as less-than-human. At least not in the law books.

True, but the grandfather clause of the Black Codes was specifically designed to keep black people from voting while allowing whites that right. Poor whites and blacks often got caught in the same net, yes, but even poor whites enjoyed priviledges not granted to blacks. Like the ability to file charges or testify against someone in the court of law.

For being white? Wow. I did not know this.

I don’t think Belowjob is being simple at all. And I’m confused how you could think Roots is a fantasy in the same line as GWTW. It may be inaccurate as far as Haley’s family history goes. It may be fictionalized for the sake of entertainment. But a fantasy? Yes, I really think people want to fantasize about runaway slaves getting their feet chopped off. :rolleyes:

There’s no need to discount the horribleness of slavery to make your point. Numerous slave narratives confirm that slavery was a perculiar institution indeed. I get tired of people saying “it wasn’t that bad” as if they know. They would never think of saying “it wasn’t that bad” to the Jews or even to the Native Americans. But they somehow think it’s alright in the case of black folk.

Belowjob earlier mentioned the idea of a national museum dedicated to slavery. I’m all for this idea. The federal government helped to establish the National Holocaust Museum, which sits on federal property. This is a much-needed institution, but many–including myself–find it a bit ironic and hard-hitting that black Americans–who in many ways have been as victimized as the Jews during the Holocaust–have not been given the same type of respect. Perhaps the fact that the Holocaust occurred in another land makes it easier to memorialize. But it think it would be wonderful if we could build something like the NHM in the memory of American slaves and their struggle for freedom.

I apologize if any of this has already been covered, but my browser doesn’t seem to want to load Page 2 of this thread, so I’m missing out on some stuff. Anyway…

I know some of the people who are opposed to reparations are fairly rude about it, and tend to distort perfectly good arguments. I’d like to clarify a few of those arguments.

First of all, it is often stated that black people should not get reparations, because they’re better off today than if their ancestors had not been shipped to the US and made slaves. This is frequently twisted into “you should be thankful that…”, and it shouldn’t be. Slavery is an awful thing, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, regardless of what it would net me, financially speaking. However, the cold truth is that the average black person in the US is much better off financially than the average black person in most African countries where we bought slaves. It stands to reason, then, that if we had not brought these people to the US, their ancestors would be in worse shape than they are today. Given that one of the many arguments in favor of reparations is that blacks are suffering financially as a result of slavery, this is a perfectly valid counter-argument. Note that this doesn’t imply that black people of today should be grateful towards white slave-holders of the 1800’s. Say I’m walking down the street, and someone drives their car into me. I’m hit hard, and fly across the street, where I land on a suitcase stuffed with hundreds, which I keep. However, I’m paralyzed from the waist down. Should I be grateful that I got hit, because I’m now wealthier? No, probably not. Should I sue the driver, on the grounds that his hitting me made me poor? While I may be justified in suing the driver, doing it on the grounds that he made me poor just doesn’t fly.

Second, it’s frequently argued that “reparations has already been made in the form of social service programs”, to which reparations supporters reply, “but that money goes to everyone, not just blacks”. Well, true, these forms of assistance are not made exclusively to blacks. However, if blacks are really that much more likely to be poor, then they’re more likely to qualify for such programs, which means that such assistance is disproportionately allocated to blacks. Thus, there is already a net cash flow going from white people to black people. I note that a lot of people refer to certain laws as “racist”, not because they specifically mention race, but because the net result tends to work against black people. Why is it that these laws can be considered racially oriented, but welfare-related programs can’t? What, does something only pertain to race when it’s bad?

For what it’s worth, I don’t think the average black reparations supporter is lazy or selfish. I think that the problem lies with the self-appointed black leaders (Jesse Jackson, Kweisi Mfume, Cynthia McKinney, et al) who make a career out of telling the black population that they’re oppressed and can’t make it by without more help and more money. I think if people would just leave the race thing the hell alone for awhile, it would pretty much straighten itself out.
Jeff

Oh please, did you even read the freakin’ OP of this thread? There is a lot of hostility being shown by ignorant people here.

You want to claim that indentured servitude was as bad as slavery? What the hell are you smoking? Indentured servitude was a terrible thing, but it was nowhere near as bad a slavery. An indentured servant had some hope of freedom, the children of an indentured servant weren’t born into servitude, working an indentured servant to death as you claim may not have been uncommon (I doubt it, but I’ll take your word on it) but they were rarely beaten- the fact that a contract could be extended in the event of poor work would discourage masters from beating their servants. Indentured servitude was a terrible thing, you are comparing it to one of the very few things that were worse.

Again though, New York, unlike the Feds, does not differentiate between powdered cocaine and crack. As your own link noted,

New York lowered the threshold weight for all types of cocaine.

I’m not arguing that the Rockefeller drug laws are a good thing - they most emphatically are not. Nor am I saying that they do not have a discriminatory impact - they probably do. But any discriminatory impact they have is not based on a crack/powder distinction.

Sua

A common misconception is that the “3/5” law was enacted as a way to demonstrate that black slaves were less than human. Actually, this law was put into place by the anti-slavery states-to-be to keep the south from having too much power. Recall that the number of congressmen in a state is determined by that state’s population. The southern states had huge numbers of slaves, which gave them populations that dwarfed the northern states. The northern states didn’t want to count blacks at all, because this would give them a slight advantage in the House, and would lessen the impact of the slave states. The slave states, of course, wanted each slave to count as a full person, so as to gain power, and thus preserve their ability to maintain slavery. (The anti-slave effort isn’t something suddenly born in 1860 - it went back to the birth of our nation.) The “3/5” rule was a compromise in order to moderate the power of southern states.

Anyway, just to clarify.

Jeff

grendel, I never referenced indentured servitude, as I know little about it. Yes, I did read the OP–perhaps you would care to more carefully read the rest of the posts in this thread.

SuaSponte,

It looks like I merged the Fed and the New York laws in 1988, probably because they both punished crack so harshly in the same year (and cocaine equally harsh in New York). Now that I know that New York’s laws don’t follow the 100-1 rule, I’ll just stick to calling them “draconian” and leave the “racist” label for the Federal law.

I love that we have lawyers on this board!

watch the world burn: How many of them are actually former slaves? Or just lazy freeloaders looking for a quick buck?

t-keela: A million bucks to everyone, that’s about what a new Cadillac would cost then!

H8_2_W8: Am I out of line to think this debate ought to include what has been done for the black population by the government over the years?

I looked up the actual cost of the Civil War, as linked below, which was $6.2 billion in 1865 costs (although it wasn’t fully accounted for until 1879). In 2001 dollars, that would be $67.5 billion dollars spent to beat the South and officially end slavery. (I’m not sure how you would account for the 330,000 Union soldiers who died.)

yanx4ever: If slavery was a bill, I believe it should have been stamped “Paid in Full”, with change due back.

Joe_Cool: You’re leaving out the most obvious and most likely possibility:

Perhaps minorities make up a disproportionately large portion of the prison population because they commit a disproportionately large number of crimes. But of course it’s not PC to say that.

k2dave: I want a day celebrating the white man ending slavery - A day where former slaves can thank the white man for ending this practice.

And, as long as it remains citeless:
W. Panic Snopes: (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.)

Fantastic idea. I’m all for it.

Well, “a minor example” in the sense that something completely wrong isn’t a major example, I suppose. This isn’t the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on the SDMB, but it’s a damned good try. I mean, are you trying to feel victimized?

So tell me: which “One, one black man” is it? Samuel Delany (yuk)? Steven Barnes (great stuff)? LeVar Burton (so-so)? Are you including women such as Octavia Butler (great stuff) or Hugo and Nebula nominated Nalo Hopkinson (very good, but not to my taste)? If not, why not? What about all the others?

From the rec.arts.sf.written FAQ:

[quote]

Are there any black SF authors?
Yes. The three most prominent are Samuel Delany, Octavia Butler and

Well, “a minor example” in the sense that something completely wrong isn’t a major example, I suppose. This isn’t the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on the SDMB, but it’s a damned good try. Where in hell did you get that statistic? Victims-R-Us?

So tell me: which “One, one black man” were you thinking of? Samuel Delany (yuk)? Steven Barnes (great stuff)? LeVar Burton (so-so)? Are you including women such as Octavia Butler (great stuff) or Hugo and Nebula nominated Nalo Hopkinson (very good, but not to my taste)? If not, why not? What about all the others?

From the rec.arts.sf.written FAQ:

Do not confuse your ignroance of a genre with a lack of talented people.

Fenris

To my knowledge DeLaney is retired from pro writing and is now teaching somewhere. Burton wouldn’t be doing any more writing than Shimmerman if he hadn’t been on a series where virtually anyone whith a walk on appearance is pretty much guaranteed a book deal and Barnes is certainly male, black, currently working as a writer, and as you mentioned he is damned good. As for the female writers, Octavia is surely a nice lady and a great writer but she is a female and I’d say more fantasy than sci-fi.

Allow me to be more specific: Of the hundreds of working science fiction writers in America who make their living in the genre and continue to publish, are you aware of how many are black men? Besides your obvious illiteracy (Black MEN, and SCIENCE fiction) and desire to nitpick in a confrontational manner w/o contributing to the OP (as in, why not ask for clarification? Or are you saying there are an equal ration of blacks in the arts? What exactly is your point in relation to the OP?) I just have two things to say to you =expletive= =deleted=. You fill in the blanks.

To my knowledge DeLaney is retired from pro writing and is now teaching somewhere. Burton wouldn’t be doing any more writing than Shimmerman if he hadn’t been on a series where virtually anyone whith a walk on appearance is pretty much guaranteed a book deal and Barnes is certainly male, black, currently working as a writer, and as you mentioned he is damned good. As for the female writers, Octavia is surely a nice lady and a great writer but she is a female and I’d say more fantasy than sci-fi.

Allow me to be more specific: Of the hundreds of working science fiction writers in America who make their living in the genre and continue to publish, are you aware of how many are black men? Besides your obvious illiteracy (Black MEN, and SCIENCE fiction) and desire to nitpick in a confrontational manner w/o contributing to the OP (as in, why not ask for clarification? Or are you saying there are an equal ratio of blacks in the arts? What exactly is your point in relation to the OP?) I just have two things to say to you =expletive= =deleted=. You fill in the blanks.

Hostile, I agree.

Have no idea why you view this as hostile to blacks.

Again, why is this hostile?

Not hostile to blacks.

Maybe hostile, but certainly worth thinking over. His statement was refuted as far as drugs go, but not as far as other crimes go.

Hostile and silly.

I saw this as more of a criticism of Farrakhan than of blacks in general.

I take it that you now see the hostility towards blacks in this thread?