Regarding the blacks marching for reparations tomorrow...

Great Debates
161

It should be obvious that reparations will never happen. The only fair way to do it would be to determine which specific Americans profitted from slavery, trace their descendents to modern America, and determine how much of their current wealth is due to slaveholding. Put that money in a pot, and then determine which Americans can trace their ancestry back to slavery, divide the pot among all of them. To say that every black is owed something by virtue of color is not logical. To follow this logic, if you have two guys immigrating to the US today, one from Germany and one from Nigeria, the German would have to pay the Nigerian for offenses that Americans did over a century ago.

The other unjumpable hurdle is the matter of law. It was legal to own slaves, just as I can legally drive 70 mph on the way to work. If they change the speed limit tomorrow, can I be ticketed ex post facto for violating the new limit? Of course not.

To say the nation was built on the backs of slavery is an exaggeration. In the industrial north, slavery was never legal. Slaves did not build Michigan or New York. I have no doubt that the Capitol and White House were built with some slave labor, Washington is south of the Mason Dixon line and that’s how things were then. I have no problem whatever with a national slave memorial. Slavery was a terrible thing, as a nation we need to honor those who were enslaved. But we cannot illegally punish the innocent of the present and that is precisely what reparations would do.

The time and effort spent in pushing for reparations would be far better spent in pushing all children to excel in school, to crack down on drug abuse, to provide good jobs, and to eliminate teen pregnancies. These would solve the real problems that urban America faces. Crime, unemployment, and drugs affect black America disproportionately. Unfortunately, focusing on the events of 137 years ago does not solve the problems of today.

Monstro, you challanged my reference to the OJ celebration. I only brought it up to illustrate the “us vs. them” mentality that we have to overcome. It is not a victory if “one of us kills one of them” and gets away with it. It is a sad thing when any person is murdered and when any person gets away with the crime. The celebration of this madness should have been condemned by all Americans regardless of race, yet no black leaders did so. Yes it was seven years ago. Slavery was 137 years ago. Your point was?

Again to Monstro- there are many web sites out there with every viewpoint imaginable. Finding one and linking to it does not qualify as research.

162

I’ve lost this post 3 times, could someone please cite a few references when making claims such as slaves did or did not build the US infrastructure.

163

I’m not denying or diminishing the fact that slaves were used extensively in the South for laborious tasks. But, I’ve found no sources backing up the numbers used for developing the infrastructure in the Old South.

I have in fact found support to the idea that most railroads were in the North. A few rails were built in the South, most of which were short lines to and from cities to ports. Practically all of the rails in the South were destroyed during the Civil War.

As far as construction is concerned, the Army was responsible for much of the supervision and the labor was performed mostly by European immigrants (Irish esp.) in the Eastern US and by Chinese in the West.

The railroad infrastructure in the South now is a result of reconstruction in which NO slave labor was used.

Most of the Major cities in the South were founded before slavery became firmly established. Slaves were by and large used for profit by individually owned farms or plantations. They were a valuable commodity which were not available or used by government for labor.

Most of the Wealth, at least individual/family wealth, was lost in the War. Most assets were destroyed or confiscated. The aristocracy in the South by and large ceased to exist.

Plus, slavery reparations were distributed after the Civil War to any freedman that wanted “back-pay”, most declined.

This is what I’ve found, thus far. Please provide me with evidence to the contrary.

I keep getting bumped, so I’ll post and return later.

164

http://nccah.iwarp.com/slavehist.htm

You are either lying or ignorant.

Michigan or New York constitutes the country? Bwhaha!

see…

http://members.tripod.com/~tfred/1820ind.html

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9802/12/t_t/burial.ground/

You shouldn’t have any doubts, seeing as how I provided cites for this. And “some” slave labor my ass.

(If slaves built the nation’s capitol–the flagship of the country–then how could someone really argue that this country wasn’t built on their backs, either metaphorically or literally?)

If pro-reparations people can demonstrate that the country benefited from slavery–which I have no doubt they could do–then this argument doesn’t fly. We benefit from something that was not adequetely compensate. Therefore, theoretically, we would all “owe”.

I say theoretically because those that we would “owe” are gone. But the debt is still there, jack. So “punishment” is the wrong word you’re looking for. A better word would be “paying up”.

And these things are happening. Just because the media jumps on one over-hyped rally doesn’t mean people have their energies misdirected.

How do know you what “black leaders” did or said? You speak as if you know everything that goes on in my community, but I think you know only what CNN wants you to know.

All of my cites are backed by research, bub. Literature cited provided and everything. No op-ed pieces were cited by me.

But even if I did, I would at least be trying to debate this issue intelligently. 99% of the posters on this thread have NOT cited anything. And yet I’m the one who gets called out.

I would laugh if it wasn’t so absurd.

165

Cite?

OK, so only if slaves built the infrastructure of the Old South would the statement “they built this country” be accurate? Aren’t you taking this just a little too literal?

If slaves were the economic foundation of the South, it doesn’t make a difference if they literally didn’t build the South. They provided a means for its development.

Ya know, it’s just good sense to provide cites. So please provide us with evidence that what you’re saying is true in the first place.

166

Monstro - “See these cites.”

http://www.progressive.org/mpbvmo00.htm

http://www.mit.edu/people/bpfoley/slavery2.html

These cites are useless, the first one is written by an obviously biased freelance author who offers no proof for his claims.

The second cite basically discusses the role of AA slaves in the maritime world.

*note- I have not taken stand for or against your postition in this post, merely pointing out the fact that unless you have other cites which I may have overlooked, these are less than credible.

Still having post probs. be back soon…aaaggghhh

167

See, “America” a Narrative History by George Tindall. In this history text it outlines the reparations paid to ex-slaves on a state-state basis.

The Federal government offered money and expedition/settlement in Liberia.

But, It was the States who were required to make amends w/ the ex-slaves. All but the states of Mississippi and S.Carolina complied. Slaves were offered a choice of free land that was confiscated by the North from wealthy plantation owners, or they could “purchase” at practically no cost any public land available. Purchase meaning pay the taxes after they started working the land.

This policy of Pres. A. Johnson nearly cost him the Presidency, remember he was a Southerner trying to implement reconstruction.

Former slaves by and large rejected these proposals. The “promise” of 40 acres and a mule was too enticing.

So, if reparations were offered but denied, how does that effect later generations. I am going to attempt to find out how the descendants of slaves who accepted reparations at the end of the CW fare compared to those who did not.

168

Monstro- What part of my posts do you disagree with?

Plus, remember that I have only been looking for legitimate cites that backup claims made by others with no sources.
I would be happy to withdraw anything I’ve said in support of what “you with the face” has stated thus far.

I’m not arguing that reparations weren’t due to slaves! or can’t you tell.

169

First off, the author was a “she”.

Second off, nothing she said was untrue. You can go to the Washington Post and get the same information:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-07/19/159l-071900-idx.html

And Americans would want this why?

And do you mind telling the class what happened to this land supposed granted to blacks?

<raising hand enthusiastically>

I know! I know! All those dispossed aristocrats were pissed and shoved off all those darkies off their land.

I’m not making this up.

Excerpt from http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1994/4/94.04.01.x.html:

So given that what the above says is true (and I believe it is), this makes your comments

and

wrong wrong wrong.

And I have just shut down your cites with one cursory search on google.

I can’t, really. Because it seems as if all of your posts have been to either say, “The slaves got what they were due” or “The slaves didn’t really do much anyway.” This explains why my posts to you have been rather pissy and impatient.

170

monstro and t-keela, without engaging too deeply in this debate (which, having seen the last debate on this and the recent pit thread, I am relucant to do), I want to ask something… Was most of the 19th century growth in the US economy came from industrialization, and if so did most of this came in the North, after the Civil War, or both? Or was most of the US’s economic growth from the antebellum South? I genuinely have no feel for these figures, but obviously they would be important in settling your disagreement.

171

yanx4ever

It’s a shame that our education system sucks to the degree that it does. Or perhaps you had mono the week they went over slavery in American history class? I’m just trying to give your brain the benefit of the doubt here.

t-keela:

Honey, slaves did more than just construct infastructure; they provided the means (read money) for its existence. Without a cash crop like cotton, do you really think the south would have been able to support heavy infrastructure like railroads? The city of Atlanta (from which I hail, BTW) was formerly known as Terminus because of its relationship with the trains that used to transport cotton and other materials from the south to the north and vice versa. The railroads would not have been there had there been no cotton. Cotton would not have been there had there not been the kind of dirt cheap labor that slavery was.

The agrarian nature of the Southern economy fed upon slaves; that’s why the slaveowners were willing to kill themselves off in the Civil War before giving them up.

monstro, you are doing an excellent job living up to the credo of this message board. Just try to be a little bit more patient with these guys, for they know not what they do.

172

ywtf - sweetheart, I’m not disagreeing w/ you, I’m looking for some figures and facts, something besides an obviously intelligent person’s word for it.

If it’s just about money then Hell, get it on. If that’s what it’ll take to satisfy the situation. Somehow I feel it goes deeper than that!

173

gr8rguy I think agreeing with some people is unlikely if not impossible. They just want to complain, and try to make everyone wrong but themselves. I’ve defended both sides of this issue but I am still just “Whitey”. I have been misquoted, taken out of context and called names throughout the thread.

I tried to listen to others and asked for real data which has yet to appear. The sad truth of the matter is that neither side is actually wrong. The problem is that everyone thinks they are right!

If money could fix this I would go to the bank and send everything I have in. We both know $$$$ is not the problem…:frowning:
PEACE

174

t-keela, the whole purpose of this board is to argue intelligently. Debating is not always an easy exercise.

No one has made you “wrong”. Only you can make you wrong.

You haven’t convinced me of much except that you’re not as hateful as others who have posted on this thread. But I haven’t seen you arguing from both sides. If you have, I’ve completely missed it.

What real data are you looking for? Can you please repost your question so that I may help you look?

I haven’t convinced anyone of anything because most people lurking and posting on this thread already have their minds made up. I spent a chunk of my day wading through the internet, trying to find palatable cites to the crazy positions people were taking, and I know it’s still not enough. People already have their minds made about the slaves’ contribution to society being overrated and garbage and whatnot. Sometimes I wonder if it takes being a descendent of slaves to fully appreciate the gravity of American slavery.

But it doesn’t matter. This issue still makes people angry and it doesn’t even matter anymore.

(Every time slavery becomes an issue on SDMB, I vow that I’m not going to participate. Then someone says something loud and wrong and I feel compelled. And I always say, “Never again. It’s not worth it.” I wonder if I’m going to have the same regrets this time…)

I agree with this. Money isn’t the problem. It’s ignorance.

gr8rguy, I’ve tried finding information about the economy of antebellum US, and I’ve only stumbled across ads for history books. So I’m giving up.

175

Darn. Well, thanks for taking the time to look, monstro. If I happen to come across something, I’ll let y’all know.

176

I cannot seem to find any specific information concerning what type of reparations those who marched on Washington sought.

I know that there was the suit filed last March where reparations were sought as compensation for slave labor from various corporations that benefitted from slave labor, the amount totalling $1.4 trillion. Has the United States become a defendent in this suit?

From reading the Millions for Reparation site, it seems they too refer to the suit, but much of the discussion seems to refer to what may be other possible types of reparation, including reparation from the government for discriminatory practices occurring since the Civil War.

As for the “built on slave labor” references that seem to have become a focus here, I think it is apparent that slave labor contributed greatly to America’s economic prosperity, moreso in the agrarian south, but also in the north. After all, as already mentioned, there was a reason why Africans were brought to America; they were cheap labor that could be worked hard, allowing for a greater output at a cheaper cost. This would give, for example, American cotton exporters a competitive advantage over nations that didn’t use slave labor, and kept them competitive with nations that did use slave labor. Maybe I’m wrong in saying this, but it seems logical to me. I’m afraid I don’t have citations to support this statement, so take it for what it’s worth.

For that matter, paid labor also contributed to America’s economic prosperity, as did self-proprietorships, traders (including slave traders), etc. In that sense, the statements concerning slave labor would be more accurately stated as “African labor helped build the “super power” that is the United States” instead of “African labor built the “super power” that is the United States”. Of course, that “help” wasn’t exactly voluntary.

My question has to do with why this is being mentioned in the Millions for Reparations site. Is it being mentioned in the context of another means of determining the compensation owed, i.e., is the compensation sought by this or some other group based on profits or something (as opposed to compensation for wages owed)? Or is it being mentioned less as a proposed compensation formula and more as a rallying call to others who may be sympathetic to this cause?

177

No. But that sort of snide remark is both ignorant and offensive.

Nobody’s denying that “slaves helped build this nation.” But you and ywtf are arguing that the entire country was “built on the backs of slaves,” and that’s plainly untrue. Sure, that can be said about the South; I’ll even give you Delaware, Rhode Island, and New York–I’ll throw in port cities in New England, due to the income they derived from slave trading prior to 1819. But the Midwest? No. The Old Northwest? No. Pennsylvania, my home state? No. Arizona, Montana, Idaho? No.

And this is where I think you’re projecting. You repeatedly take one statement and build paragraphs upon it, casting your net wildly.

In the BBQ Pit thread on this issue, you responded to me by saying:

That’s offensive, that’s racist, and that’s stupid.

178

(Hit “submit” too soon)

How would you take it if I told you “Slave descendants can go back where they came from”? Would you consider it racist? I sure would. Why can’t you see that the same exact statement with the name of the group changed is equally racist?

I’m through with this discussion. All I’m going to say is that I’m not giving you $6,000 I don’t have. Deal with it.

179

You do realise that monstro has stated opposition to reparations on several occasions, don’t you Squish?
I know I’m getting pretty damn sick and tired of people accusing everyone who is opposed to the bigotry of the extreme anti-reparationists being accused of looking for a handout.

As far as the comment you consider “offensive, racist and stupid”- I don’t see black americans bitching about having to pay taxes. That’s what this amounts to, and if you don’t like paying taxes don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

180

B]Squish**:

The phrase “this country was built on the back of slaves” to me implies that this great country as we know it today would not exist if not for slavery. It does not mean that every state from Alaska to Wisconsin used slavery as its primary tool of survival. It just means that the US as a whole profited from slave exploitation. So let’s not get hung up on individual states, okay?

The New World was an untamed wilderness when the first settlers came aboard. Ask yourselves this: why did they dip their hands into the messy vat of African slave trade if they felt they could colonize this place without the “help” of slave labor? Their first inclination was to use Native Americans, but when those guys started getting sick from the European diseases, someone (a priest whose name I forget) came up with the bright idea to use Africans. And voila, there you have it. American slavery was begun because the settlers were faced with the arduous task of transforming a wilderness into a civilation. And they didn’t want to do it alone.

So all this focus on the last few decades of slavery misses the fact that even in the days prior to this country’s birth, slaves were paving the way for the America to come. “This country was built on the backs of slave labor” is far from a garbage statement, and if you kept up with your history lessons, you’d know this, man!

monstro has stated repeatedly that she doesn’t agree with reparations (nor do I). The fact that you and others keep using this mantra of petulant indignation as some sort of comeback reveals a lot about your maturity level, not to mention your reading-comprehension ability.