It’s inaccurate because it says something about black people that is false. It’s compounded that this is a negative stereotypical view. No, not all black people are “looking for a government handout”, whatever that means.
It’s as inaccurate and racist to say this as to say “blacks are lazy”, “blacks are stupid”, “blacks are violent”, etc.
This is (or would be) just a start. And in my experience, the percentage of older black people who know what redlining is, especially among the people who actually lived in redline areas, is quite high.
We’re just throwing ideas around, you know. You seemed to be okay with some of my other ones. If you don’t like this one, that’s okay too.
Apart from the implications of the word “just”, which part of it is false?
The ones pushing it are black, it is clearly a handout, and it comes from the government.
NO one said that all black people are looking for a government handout. Some black people are looking for reparations, which is a government handout. In the case of reparations, therefore, it is clearly true that black people are looking for a government handout.
Regards,
Shodan
The phrase “black people are looking for a government handout”. Without a quantitative adjective like “some”, I take this to mean “all black people are looking for a government handout”. If it just means “some black people are looking for a government handout”, then it’s a pointless claim, because some of every single group of humans are looking for a government handout.
If you mean reparations, then no, not all of the ones pushing it are black, and whether it’s a handout or not depends on the meaning of the word (which undoubtedly differs) – I don’t see reparations for a legitimate wrong, like the Japanese-American interment compensation, as a “handout”.
Without knowing the intended quantitative adjective, it’s either false (“all black people…”) or specious (“some black people…”).
The intended quantifier is “in the case of reparations”. Ergo, the statement “reparations are a case of black people seeking a government handout” is accurate.
I suspect part of the issue is that I draw a distinction between statements that are racist, and statements that are true. A statement that is true cannot be racist, because a statement that is racist is not true. Therefore, the following statements are not racist -
[ul][li]Reparations are a case of blacks seeking a government handout[/li][li]In the US, black-on-white rape is more common than white-on-black rape[/li][li]In the US, blacks score lower on standard tests of IQ and academic achievement than whites or Asians of the same socio-economic level[/ul]Please note that the words “all” and “every” do not appear in any of the statements.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan
PS - “Black” in these instances refers to those who self-identify as black.
Bullshit. Again. But feel free to describe a plan that does NOT involve money.
Okay, I will. I’ll also keep thinking that up is up and down is down.
No, you’re getting funny. That’s something. Thanks for the snicker. And try to control the spittle.
Sounds like something I said. Good for you. I agree.
Of course not. Just our money.
Uh…no.
Oh, brother. 
I wasn’t talking about today, genius. I was talking about the program, you know, with the payments tied to the mother, that led to the break-up of the Black family. Do pay attention.
Read about the Kansas City Experiment. I mean, I take it you know how to read, right?Then look at how much money is spent on pupils per district and see if that correlates to performance. Look at how much spending per student in the U.S. compares to kids elsewhere and how that correlates with performance.
Would you say that American Blacks have the same love of education than say, American Japanese? Yes or no?
Now. while the answer to the above might be “No”, writ large, it does not mean that Black parents don’t want their kids to succeed, to not be killed in gang activity, shot, or thrown in jail for drug derailing or some other crimes. Wanting those things to NOT happen, and realizing that their local school has sucked for over a generation, they wisely jump at an alternative when it is present. You know, when White liberals like NYC’s new idiot mayor do not succeed in eliminating that option.
No it’s not. It might be accurate for some, but for others they might be seeking justice, or some sort of reckoning, or some other motivation.
[quote]
I suspect part of the issue is that I draw a distinction between statements that are racist, and statements that are true. A statement that is true cannot be racist, because a statement that is racist is not true. Therefore, the following statements are not racist -
[ul][li]Reparations are a case of blacks seeking a government handout[/ul][/li][/quote]
This one is both racist (a negative sterotype) and false (see above).
Do you think Japanese-American internment reparations were a case of Japanese-Americans seeking a government handout?
So “reparations are a case of black people seeking a government handout” is no more accurate than “reparations are a case of black people seeking justice”. In my opinion, the second is probably far more accurate.
Actually, if by “justice” you mean “someone paying in some way for something they did wrong”, you are wrong-most of the perpetrators are dead and gone.
Not necessarily. If the perpetrator was the government, then it’s the institution that is responsible, not the particular people in power at the time.
As far as individuals, the same goes for the Japanese-American internment compensation, as well as German reparations to Jews and Israel, but I think both of those instances advanced the cause of justice.
Do you disagree?
I really don’t like going down that road. In my opinion the “government” isn’t an unchanging monolith-it’s an ever-changing interconnection of agencies that work against and/or with each other depending on the people currently in those agencies and those that direct those agencies from above. For the most part, the people that created those abhorrent policies and the citizens that were taxed to fund those abhorrent polices are no longer alive. Penalizing a different Federal government, made up of agencies that do not support those past policies in any way and staffed by workers that for the most part would have nothing to do with those past policies isn’t justice in any way, shape or form. If reparations are to be, they should be for past injustices done by a past government-not a punishment aimed at the current government.
So do you think the other instances of reparations/compensation I’ve been mentioning were wrong and unjust?
I’ve never seen reparations as punishment of the government. It certainly could be, if the payments were meant to be much more than simple compensation, but it needn’t be.
No-I never even implied that. I am saying that when a current government takes such an action because of previous misdeeds done by a totally different past government, it should be done because it is the right thing to do in and of itself, and not out of some sense of guilt, self-imposed or otherwise.
Okay. Not surprisingly, I think it’s very possible that reparations for past injustices against black people would be the right thing to do ‘in and of itself’.
As do I…but being the right thing to do is only part of it. It would be right for all past injustices throughout the history of our nation to be recompensed in some form or another, but to even attempt to do so would bankrupt our nation both monetarily and spiritually. Funding that was originally designed to move us into the future would instead be spent on figuring out how to assuage the guilt of the past, and taxpayer revolt would make today’s Tea Party fuss look like an actual tea party.
The question is not, and never has been, Are reparations right?
The actual question is How far are we prepared to go, what are we willing to pay, in time, money and effort, to right this particular wrong?
That didn’t take long.
magellan01, I had intended on going line-for-line, but frankly, I think we’re at an impasse. You think blacks want some handout, that we don’t desire education, that we’re angling for the welfare line. I don’t have time to rehash these tired, boilerplate arguments. I’m just going to repost what I replied to in my previous post about non-monetary reparations. I will highlight it. If you have any questions, please reply, and I’ll be more than happy to explain it further. In the mean time, you’re more than welcome to continue believing reparations must involve money.
[QUOTE=Honesty]
Surprisingly, white people had the right reparation formula in 1960’s - Affirmative Action, the Voting Rights Act, Equal Pay Act. These were imperfect but suitable reparations for 400 years of mistreatment. Unfortunately, white people decided to renege on these “reparations” immediately after MLK died. He wasn’t in the ground for more than a decade before the Courts start striking them down one-by-one (See Bakke). Indeed, the Michigan case that was decided by the Supreme Court was brought on the ballot through voter fraud and the U.S government did nothing. Moreover, the striking down Section IV of the Voting Rights Act shows that white people are not serious at all in combating and even recognizing there is still systemic racism in this country which was ostensibly borne from the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
[/QUOTE]
I wish we could make the font bigger, but oh well.
Oh, please,** John Mace**. The institution is the will of the people and it’s the people that have to pay. It’s truly that simple.
Here’s an example. Ya’ll* decided to vote for the highest peacetime deficit in the history in U.S in 1980 and 1984 elections. Then you got together and did it again in 2000 and 2004. We now have $17 trillion in debt with about ~$2 trillion in revenue. Who do you think will pay that debt? It won’t be us. It’ll be your grandchildren that’ll pay for it. You see, my friend, the government is a timeless institution which means the particular people in power at the time of these policies will be long, long dead.