The Case for Reparations

#51
#51
Through_The_T said:
If we're paying reparations to descendants of slaves, we need to be fair about this.

Native Americans deserve a share for being effectively wiped out, as well as the seizure of their lands.
(I agree)
Descendants of 19th century Jewish and Irish immigrants should be paid because of the unfair treatment and slum living their ancestors were forced into. (They volunteered to come here, while blacks were forced here on slave ships)

The British government should be paid for the great loss of life and resources caused by the American Revolution.
(To the victor, goes the spoils)

Descendants of folks who lost their lives/resources during the Great Depression should be paid due to their relatives suffering.
(Slavery and genocide are not on the same level as an economic depression. The resolution for that would be to jail those responsible)

The descendants of Japanese citizens forced into containment camps in WWII deserve a cut as well.
(They already got reparations)
Where does it end?
Click to expand...
Indians and blacks would have been the right thing to do about 120 years ago, but it is a moot point this far removed. But I guess my point is, that on an intellectual basis, you can't just dismiss the idea of reparations for blacks. Not suggesting that the white man pays up right now or in the future... just acknowledge that reparations were owed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#56
#56
Vol8188 said:
I read it. But I still don't see how blacks would have benefitted.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't. You don't see any flocking back to Africa do you? Nobody denies slavery was a terrible thing but "some" deny that it worked out for a greater good. Remembering history & learning from it is a good thing but rehashing it on a daily basis & using it as an excuse gets old after awhile. I mean I'm not suffering from the hit my great grandparents took from the Great Depression.
 
#57
#57
Godfatha said:
Slavery ended 150 years ago. America grew into and industrialized, prosperous world power without it being there. Commodity prices in the early 1800s would have been higher, but there still would have been a large demand for cotton. I would argue that the US in general would have been better off without slavery because those commodities would have still been harvested and sold, but the people working the field would have been paid, and England would have paid more for the cotton, shifting more wealth to the United States.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. During the very early industrial growth period for the U.S. there is no doubt, that as an economy, the nation benefited from essentially free labor. And as others have pointed out, that wasn't just blacks... but no doubt they were the majority.

I think Coates provides some very insightful information and raises many good questions. As vbhm has pointed out though, he doesn't specifically offer a solution. Rather, he seems to want Congress to pass a bill proposed by Democratic Representative John Conyers to study slavery and recommend "appropriate remedies".

My biggest issue with Coates is that he seemingly lays the blame for "current" sufferings by blacks all on "past" issues while denying any culpability by the AA community at all. So imo he is partially blinded by his own views and not willing to face part of the reality... things have indeed gotten better, but it will require a level of remorse, and forgiveness, and willingness to move forward on everyone's part before some racism wounds are fully healed.

An excerpt...

Coates lists some of the ways the US has attempted to address the problem and concludes they are not enough.

Black culture, he says, is not to blame. The idea that if blacks could behave more "respectably" is a sham.

"The kind of trenchant racism to which black people have persistently been subjected can never be defeated by making its victims more respectable," Coates writes. "The essence of American racism is disrespect. "

And placing the blame on broken homes and the absence of black fathers? The destruction of the black family has been a prime means of white control for hundreds of years.
Click to expand...

Here's an interesting article that provides a little more insight into Coates...

Coates Disagrees With ?Jonathan Chait,? So Do I -- NYMag
 
#60
#60
Vol8188 said:
....and this how would this be better for blacks?
Click to expand...

The obvious answer (which I know the question isn't directed at me) would be it is not.

There aren't tribes going roaming through America right now forcing black children to serve in their armies. And cutting off the hands of those opposed.

There aren't tribes in American killing someone for going to a different church.

There aren't tribes selling girls because they went to school.

There aren't tribes forcing modern day slave labor to pull diamonds out of the ground.

There aren't tribes dedicated to wholesale genocide because someone happened to have a different family tree.

Cities and States with black leadership don't undergo armed revolts and depose the sitting government just because someone didn't agree with them and would rather squander the riches for themselves before they, in turn, were deposed. And on that note, neither has the national level government either.
 
#63
#63
Vol8188 said:
Are you drunk already? I've been asking you how would it have been better for blacks if slavery never happened.
Click to expand...

Blacks don't get cancer? They wouldn't use renewable and efficient energy sources? You read all that about all the potential innovation we lost out on because of the deaths of 650,000 Americans and their posterity that never existed, right? Blacks would have benefited from all that just the same as whites.

Maybe this is a better way to put it....say slavery existed but it came to a peaceable end because there was never a fugitive slave act and it was unsustainable. The blacks runaway, live in the north, and never have to face a post-bellum south. The KKK is never founded, because there are no disenfranchised southern whites. Jim Crow never happens because southern whites don't turn the ire of losing a war on blacks, etc. Without the civil war, the southern treatment of freed blacks would have looked a lot more like the northern treatment of freed blacks.
 
#64
#64
n_huffhines said:
Blacks don't get cancer? They wouldn't use renewable and efficient energy sources? You read all that about all the potential innovation we lost out on because of the deaths of 650,000 Americans and their posterity that never existed, right? Blacks would have benefited from all that just the same as whites.

Maybe this is a better way to put it....say slavery existed but it came to a peaceable end because there was never a fugitive slave act and it was unsustainable. The blacks runaway, live in the north, and never have to face a post-bellum south. The KKK is never founded, because there are no disenfranchised southern whites. Jim Crow never happens because southern whites don't turn the ire of losing a war on blacks, etc. Without the civil war, the southern treatment of freed blacks would have looked a lot more like the northern treatment of freed blacks.
Click to expand...


That's the most insane answer I've ever heard.

"Blacks would have benefited because we would have cured cancer already".
 
#65
#65
n_huffhines said:
Blacks don't get cancer? They wouldn't use renewable and efficient energy sources? You read all that about all the potential innovation we lost out on because of the deaths of 650,000 Americans and their posterity that never existed, right? Blacks would have benefited from all that just the same as whites.

Maybe this is a better way to put it....say slavery existed but it came to a peaceable end because there was never a fugitive slave act and it was unsustainable. The blacks runaway, live in the north, and never have to face a post-bellum south. The KKK is never founded, because there are no disenfranchised southern whites. Jim Crow never happens because southern whites don't turn the ire of losing a war on blacks, etc. Without the civil war, the southern treatment of freed blacks would have looked a lot more like the northern treatment of freed blacks.
Click to expand...

Or you know, the highly dangerous and largely inhospitable continent known as Africa would have gotten even more crowded and the issues with disease and hunger that Africa has now would be magnified.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#66
#66
Vol8188 said:
That's the most insane answer I've ever heard.

"Blacks would have benefited because we would have cured cancer already".
Click to expand...

Yeah, when you change the statement and take it out of context it doesn't make sense. Great point.
 
#67
#67
CNCVol88 said:
Or you know, the highly dangerous and largely inhospitable continent known as Africa would have gotten even more crowded and the issues with disease and hunger that Africa has now would be magnified.
Click to expand...

This in no way relates to anything I've said. I'm not talking about a world in which blacks stayed in Africa.
 
#69
#69
govols/cc said:
Nothing you're saying is making any sense.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry. I'll fall in line.

"If it weren't for slavery, blacks would still be in Africa. You're welcome blacks. Now I don't have to feel bad about my ancestors' role in perpetuating slavery."
 
#71
#71
n_huffhines said:
Oh sorry. I'll fall in line.

"If it weren't for slavery, blacks would still be in Africa. You're welcome blacks. Now I don't have to feel bad about my ancestors' role in perpetuating slavery."
Click to expand...

So you disagree that they would still be in Africa?
 
#72
#72
n_huffhines said:
Oh sorry. I'll fall in line.

"If it weren't for slavery, blacks would still be in Africa. You're welcome blacks. Now I don't have to feel bad about my ancestors' role in perpetuating slavery."
Click to expand...

I don't feel bad regardless but it is what it is. If it wasn't for slavery there would be fewer blacks & they would be less disgruntled. Blaming whitey today for what happened a couple hundred years ago is dumb as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#73
#73
govols/cc said:
I don't feel bad regardless but it is what it is. If it wasn't for slavery there would be fewer blacks & they would be less disgruntled. Blaming whitey today for what happened a couple hundred years ago is dumb as well.
Click to expand...

Where would Oprah be without slavery? I think she traced herself back to the Zulu"s.
 
Last edited:
#74
#74
n_huffhines said:
Blacks don't get cancer? They wouldn't use renewable and efficient energy sources? You read all that about all the potential innovation we lost out on because of the deaths of 650,000 Americans and their posterity that never existed, right? Blacks would have benefited from all that just the same as whites.

Maybe this is a better way to put it....say slavery existed but it came to a peaceable end because there was never a fugitive slave act and it was unsustainable. The blacks runaway, live in the north, and never have to face a post-bellum south. The KKK is never founded, because there are no disenfranchised southern whites. Jim Crow never happens because southern whites don't turn the ire of losing a war on blacks, etc. Without the civil war, the southern treatment of freed blacks would have looked a lot more like the northern treatment of freed blacks.
Click to expand...

I've always found this to be a weak argument. I can't think of a discovery that led to the advancement of civilization that was exclusive to one individual.

It's like when opponents of abortion claim that the "next Einstein, Pasteur, Mother Theresa" has potentially been lost. There is just as much potential for the next Pol Pot, Hitler or Jeffery Dahmer.

Also, the North didn't treat blacks any better.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top