• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Do you think Black people will get reparations?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not really trying to minimize the impact. What I'm saying is right now in 2015 the concept of reparations for slavery is silly. If we are saying current decedents of slaves are still put at a disadvantage because of slavery then we would induce that non decedents of slaves have some sort of advantage. As far as I know I don't have any slave heritage so where is my advantage? Parents where working poor, I took out student loans out the ass, I worked while in school. Where is my advantage?

Ya know, there are probably hundreds of studies on institutionalized racism and how African Americans are disadvantaged in pretty much every facet of life, but fuck it, bootstraps.

Edit: and we could still do reparations for the victims of Jim Crow laws, plenty of those still around.
 
If I had to have just ONE way to give reparations it would be free higher education for all black descendants and forgive student loans. But again, that would cause many white people to scream bloody murder. Some of them already have a problem with Affimative Action and scholarships!

Of course, if we're gonna do that then why not just make higher education free for everyone? I could get behind that too.
 
...Why are we arguing this?

I know all about Korematsu, and it's a disgrace. My point was that the Supreme Court can overturn Korematsu at any point (and the Justice Department has basically done that), but the same is not true for the legality of slavery before the Civil War.

Because you want to say that internment was unconstitutional (it was ruled to be constitutional), and you say that the Constitution explicitly said that slavery was constitutional (it actually does not say that, and cases like the Dred Scott case were brought before the Supreme Court that would've allowed the Supreme Court to declare slavery unconstitutional).

If you say that the Supreme Court cannot rule slavery to be unconstitutional, what is your legal basis for that claim? The 13th Amendment established a new Constitutional provision, but it did not abolish any prior Constitutional provisions.
 
The Old Testament was propaganda :P

Exodus was full of anachronisms and events not supported by other lines of evidence.

Heh. I realize that, I was just making a point. There were some Jewish slaves in ancient Egypt (most likely a relatively small number), but then there were other slaves as well. Ironically ancient Egypt wasn't a slave based culture like pre Civil War America was.
 
I don't agree at all. Making the effort to give reparations to black descendents of slaves is absolutely on a different level than returning America to Native Americans.

Do you think you can give just and equal reparation to all slave descendants? do you seriously think its feasible? I'm sure you are aware of the size of the slave trade in the US.


Not to mention, that isn't even the issue, before you ninja edited your post sounded more like we should make an effort to give reparations to actual, modern black people in the US (not just slave decendants), and the thing is that their problems won't go away if you give them material reparations at this point, because that is not their problem right now. Many black people are not in poverty, yet they have to overcome hurdles everywhere constantly. The problem is not simply an economic one.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_for_slavery_debate_in_the_United_States

"Various estimates have been given if such payments were to be made. Harper's Magazine has created an estimate that the total of reparations due is over 100 trillion dollars, based on 222,505,049 hours of forced labor between 1619 and 1865, with a compounded interest of 6%.[9] Should all or part of this amount be paid to the descendants of slaves in the United States, the current U.S. government would only pay a fraction of that cost, over 40 trillion dollars, since it has been in existence only since 1789."

Do we demand the British pay up for the rest of the years?
 
Do you think you can give just and equal reparation to all slave descendants? do you seriously think its feasible? I'm sure you are aware of the size of the slave trade in the US.


Not to mention, that isn't even the issue, before you ninja edited your post sounded more like we should make an effort to give reparations to actual, modern black people in the US (not just slave decendants), and the thing is that their problems won't go away if you give them material reparations at this point, because that is not their problem right now. Many black people are not in poverty, yet they have to overcome hurdles everywhere constantly. The problem is not simply an economic one.

See, this is something I cannot and will not ever understand. It may not be ideal, but you're effectively suggesting "nothing is better than something."

Also, I've constantly repeated throughout the thread that monetary reparations are one part of fixing the problem. You can't simply give them educational opportunities, because if they don't have the money, they can't put their focus on those opportunities due to having to work to earn it.

Do we demand the British pay up for the rest of the years?

Is that something you concern yourself with, or something you introduced to obfuscate this specific discussion about reparations?
 
So because they didn't know they get off the hook? And If you are talking about Europeans wrecking Africa shouldn't you being taking this up with the EU?

If the world outside the West(including Japan as the West here) were to demand reparations for the abhorrent actions taken by Western states in the past five centuries the West would be composed of nothing but paupers. That's why we don't do it. It's foolish at this point in time and would cause more harm than good. Not to mention that the most realistic outcome of such a demand would be a worthless apology for past actions and an absolute refusal. Still, outside of Islamic extremism I'm frankly surprised that there aren't more post-colonial states clamoring for a break with the West for their past actions....but money.

Take me being Peruvian, for example. On paper, I should loathe the Spanish for ruining the demographic health of the Andes region and causing mass depopulation by turning the natives into meat for the grinder that was the mines of Potosi. Without mentioning centuries of criminal negligence, dividing the Incan Empire into several bickering nations, exploitation, mass resource extraction, slavery of natives, destruction of a culture, instigation of a rigid racial social hierarchy and a complete lack of reinvestment in the lands I'm from as well as setting up local oligarchs that would ultimately lead my country down a path of impotence vis a vis other states for most of its post-colonial history. Well, I guess that's not entirely accurate. I suppose they'd have viewed it as a favor that they brought us Jesus. /s

But the truth is that the Spanish people of today were just as much victims of their fuckwit monarchs and greedy nobles from four centuries ago as whatever ancestors I have were, ignoring the whole 'I know for a fact that a conquistador's blood runs in my veins' thing. Because only fuckwits could turn the Spanish Empire of Charles V into a second rate power by the time of the Enlightenment and a non-factor by the end of the Napoleonic Wars that has undoubtedly made Spain far poorer, less prosperous, and less successful than it has any right to be for a nation with access to as many markets, lands, and resources as it did. Spain's seen suffering too from the Napoleonic invasion of Spain utterly decimating the demographics, economy, and stability of the nation to the Spanish Civil War's destructive effects that were undoubtedly apparent in the social fabric of the Spanish until well into the 80s and 90s that left Spain as a developed economy.

The only nations to truly stay 'winning' in spite of their actions are Great Britain and the USA, if we're being honest. But I can't see it being plausible or palatable for reparations towards anything outside of a generous affirmative action stimulus package.
 
I'm not really trying to minimize the impact. What I'm saying is right now in 2015 the concept of reparations for slavery is silly. If we are saying current decedents of slaves are still put at a disadvantage because of slavery then we would induce that non decedents of slaves have some sort of advantage. As far as I know I don't have any slave heritage so where is my advantage? Parents where working poor, I took out student loans out the ass, I worked while in school. Where is my advantage?
This isn't about you specifically paying into reparations. This is about how the current wealth and economy of the united states was built on a foundation of slavery. It's such a ground zero of our way of life that to take it out would drastically change the country's reality.



Sure took a long road to get to your point. And we are talking about 2015. No one alive in the united states has been an american slave.

Well unless you're a prisoner. Than you can totally be used like a slave.
 
Because you want to say that internment was unconstitutional (it was ruled to be constitutional), and you say that the Constitution explicitly said that slavery was constitutional (it actually does not say that, and cases like the Dred Scott case were brought before the Supreme Court that would've allowed the Supreme Court to declare slavery unconstitutional).

If you say that the Supreme Court cannot rule slavery to be unconstitutional, what is your legal basis for that claim? The 13th Amendment established a new Constitutional provision, but it did not abolish any prior Constitutional provisions.

Well point of fact I believe the ruling in Korematsu was specifically about the exclusion order, and not the internment, but either way, the court got it wrong and the U.S. government has acknowledged that in several ways over the years.

And "all other persons" is a reference to slavery, specifically giving it legal merit.
 
Well point of fact I believe the ruling in Korematsu was specifically about the exclusion order, and not the internment, but either way, the court got it wrong and the U.S. government has acknowledged that in several ways over the years.

And "all other persons" is a reference to slavery, specifically giving it legal merit.

Why would it not be overturned after 70 years worth of effort if the government feels that the ruling was incorrect?
 
Link them please

Since we're on NeoGaf anyway:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=956524

I don't see any life long injuries

That's because a physical example lacks culture. It lacks laws being made, ideals being spread or institutions being built on the backs of the people suffering for the benefit of the people not. I am black but I'm also African. I don't believe anyone in my lineage save for a long gone great, great, etc. cousin has suffered from slavery, but it'd be an outright falsity to say that due to suggest that I've been completely untouched by innate biases culturally and individually that gained ground and proliferated into the present day due the the legacy and treatment of African Amercian slaves and their ancestors in this country due to sink color rather than heritage. It would also be false to say that I'm not at the same time privileged in comparison from people who are currently feeling ripples from a time when their ancestors were slaves. This isn't about making family descended from plantation X paying out as it is about repairing damage centuries made.
 
Why would it not be overturned after 70 years worth of effort if the government feels that the ruling was incorrect?

Well I believe it can't be overturned unless the same sort of thing happens again and Korematsu is used as a justification, but the Justice Department has disowned it, and the CLA in '88 says directly that it was a racially based wrong.
 
This isn't about you specifically paying into reparations. This is about how the current wealth and economy of the united states was built on a foundation of slavery. It's such a ground zero of our way of life that to take it out would drastically change the country's reality. Well unless you're a prisoner. Than you can totally be used like a slave.

The current economy of the united states is mostly the result of post war boom (ww2) and information exchange. I don't really see how slavery is a ground zero for anything besides racial tensions. Tensions that would boil over at the first mention of reparations on the news.

Let me as a question, how is a white man that came from a poor family anymore well off then a black man that came from a poor family?
 
The current economy of the united states is mostly the result of post war boom (ww2) and information exchange. I don't really see how slavery is a ground zero for anything besides racial tensions. Tensions that would boil over at the first mention of reparations on the news.

Let me as a question, how is a white man that came from a poor family anymore well off then a black man that came from a poor family?

I just linked you like 4 ways you're better off.
 
The current economy of the united states is mostly the result of post war boom (ww2) and information exchange. I don't really see how slavery is a ground zero for anything besides racial tensions. Tensions that would boil over at the first mention of reparations on the news.

Let me as a question, how is a white man that came from a poor family anymore well off then a black man that came from a poor family?

You aren't serious are you?
 
The current economy of the united states is mostly the result of post war boom (ww2) and information exchange. I don't really see how slavery is a ground zero for anything besides racial tensions. Tensions that would boil over at the first mention of reparations on the news.

Let me as a question, how is a white man that came from a poor family anymore well off then a black man that came from a poor family?

Because there exists systematic racism that makes it harder for black people to get out of poverty than it does for white people to.
 
See, this is something I cannot and will not ever understand. It may not be ideal, but you're effectively suggesting "nothing is better than something."

My problem with the something is that it can introduce even more social unrest unless these reparations are completely just and equal.

Which is why no government will ever look at such distant past for any kind of policy because it's impossible to assess correctly. You can have a descendant of an italian immigrant (who at the time were not considered white) who is now dirty poor for whatever reason, you can have an slave descendent who is a millionare now, I can come up with thousands of other examples, you can't just "take from the whites and give to the blacks", some people will think is unfair, and, again, if the reparations are not absolutely just and equal, they would be right to say so.

There is "something" to be done, a lot of things in fact, material reparations is not one that I think will lead to good results.
 
Analogy: You explore my area and I offer you kilos of heroin to use as you see fit. You don't have take the heroin because I offered it. If you do take the heroin it now becomes your responsible to take care of whatever effects the heroin might cause. I don't know if I'm making it clear. It's the responsibility of the owner.



What? And you have evidence that minorities stole his position or something. Or is this a assumption made against the fact that he didn't in. You didn't even really respond to my statement. Which was: it is not true that minorites get more scholarships then whites. I didn't even mention admissions that's purely tangential to the statement I made.

actually, ap90's main point was about admissions, and you only (inconclusively) addressed the scholarship aspect of it.
 
The current economy of the united states is mostly the result of post war boom (ww2) and information exchange. I don't really see how slavery is a ground zero for anything besides racial tensions. Tensions that would boil over at the first mention of reparations on the news.

Let me as a question, how is a white man that came from a poor family anymore well off then a black man that came from a poor family?

If you said that the economy hasn't changed since ww2. You know that the blacks GI didn't get the same federal aid and college money their white counterparts did. In turn not at all benefiting from said boom. If even they did get some money, College were segregated and or just didn't accept black applicants. This caused a entire ethnicity to not benefit from said prosperity.

Your other point. Well off probably isn't a good word. But greater chance for upward mobility. Discriminatory people exist and some of those people of HR managers and employers. Black Jamal is getting his application thrown out on name alone.
 

As you will learn from the links, you are more likely to be treated fairly and disciplined fairly in school. Then you're more likely to get into college when you apply. After that you're more likely to get a job with your new degree and then you're more likely to get a nice house with the money you made from the new job. All the while if you do something stupid like smoke weed you're less likely to become a fellon because of it.
 
You could've easily Google searched that. Come the fuck on.

It's a rhetorical question as I clearly think i get no advantage for being white. You can google search how Obama is a lizard man and get results. Does that make it true?


I added that to my link of research. I'll get back to this thread once I process the information presented to me.

As you will learn from the links, you are more likely to be treated fairly and disciplined fairly in school. Then you're more likely to get into college when you apply. After that you're more likely to get a job with your new degree and then you're more likely to get a nice house with the money you made from the new job. All the while if you do something stupid like smoke weed you're less likely to become a fellon because of it.

I'll get back to you about it, I'm still working on the prison link that was given to me and already have issues with how it's presenting statistics.
 
Well point of fact I believe the ruling in Korematsu was specifically about the exclusion order, and not the internment, but either way, the court got it wrong and the U.S. government has acknowledged that in several ways over the years.

And "all other persons" is a reference to slavery, specifically giving it legal merit.

The exclusion order was to place them into internment. Are you somehow arguing that the order to place them into internment is legal, but the actual internment was illegal?

"All other persons" does not give slavery legal merit. That's like arguing that there is legal merit to a "Corruption of Blood" punishment because the Constitution allows for giving a traitor such a punishment during the traitor's lifetime, or that the death penalty for minors cannot be abolished because the Constitutional has references to the government taking away people's lives.

The declaration of slavery being unconstitutional would not interfere with the 3/5ths clause, since former slaves would simply be counted as free persons.
 

The education system has failed you then.

Well, let us start from a simple place.

One man has the name John Smith, descended from Anglo-Saxons.

The other man has the name Tyrone Smith, descended from Igbos taken into captivity.

Both men apply for a low level position, having been born into poverty and thus not having certain connections.

Studies have shown that the man with the less "black" sounding name in a sense (names associated with the African-American community) will be chosen at a higher rate for the position than the man with the name. Despite both men being equally qualified or the black man even more so.

This is one way in which a black man/woman would face a greater challenge despite being born into an equal status of poverty as a white man/woman.
 
Oh please enlighten me then?

To equate the treatment of slaves in Africa with the treatment of slaves in America is just plainly ignorant. Slaves in Africa were basically similar to the serfs in Europe. They did not treat slaves like cattle which is how they were treated in America. You can't place blame Africans for not initially knowing Europeans treated slaves like cattle. Many kings and local leaders stopped slave trading once they found out about the way slaves were treated but go ahead and blame them all since that's much easier.

I'm not sure where in that post he equated African slavery to American slavery. I may not agree with his overall point, but it seems fairly clear his point is he puts as much blame on African slavers who actively sold slaves into known inhumane conditions as the people who purchased these slaves.

Well he seemed to be saying there's no difference between them which isn't true. He also isn't placing any blame on slave owners in America because reasons.
 
It's a rhetorical question as I clearly think i get no advantage for being white

You may not get an advantage from being white, bit you aren't given a disadvantage for being black. Being black literally feels like someone put a sign on your back that says "don't trust this guy." Which leads to a whole host of problems.
 
actually, ap90's main point was about admissions, and you only (inconclusively) addressed the scholarship aspect of it.

But that's the only point I brought up was the scholarship aspect he mention. He later gave a anecdote mention about admissions. And I was like "what does that have do with minorities having greater access to scholarships?" Here some more sources: NPR Tim Wise

The response to my comment didn't make sense. That's what I'm saying.
 
It's a rhetorical question as I clearly think i get no advantage for being white. You can google search how Obama is a lizard man and get results. Does that make it true?



I added that to my link of research. I'll get back to this thread once I process the information presented to me.



I'll get back to you about it, I'm still working on the prison link that was given to me and already have issues with how it's presenting statistics.

Add these to you research.

http://thinkprogress.org/education/2014/06/25/3452887/education-race-gap/
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/racial-disparities-federal-death-penalty-prosecutions-1988-1994
 
The current economy of the united states is mostly the result of post war boom (ww2) and information exchange. I don't really see how slavery is a ground zero for anything besides racial tensions. Tensions that would boil over at the first mention of reparations on the news.

Let me as a question, how is a white man that came from a poor family anymore well off then a black man that came from a poor family?

Have you tuned out of US news for the past year?
 
But that's the only point I brought up was the scholarship aspect he mention. He later gave a anecdote mention about admissions. And I was like "what does that have do with minorities having greater access to scholarships?" Here some more sources: NPR Tim Wise

The response to my comment didn't make sense. That's what I'm saying.

his post said "As for blacks and other ethnic groups for many forms/applications, checking something other than white/other can often give the person more weight or a better acceptance for colleges, schools and scholarships."

and you replied saying it is a myth based on an article only addressing the scholarship aspect of his post
 
The education system has failed you then.

Well, let us start from a simple place.

One man has the name John Smith, descended from Anglo-Saxons.

The other man has the name Tyrone Smith, descended from Igbos taken into captivity.

Both men apply for a low level position, having been born into poverty and thus not having certain connections.

Studies have shown that the man with the less "black" sounding name in a sense (names associated with the African-American community) will be chosen at a higher rate for the position than the man with the name. Despite both men being equally qualified or the black man even more so.

This is one way in which a black man/woman would face a greater challenge despite being born into an equal status of poverty as a white man/woman.

You say studies show, I got some links to look through to see these studies. I do wounder if we change the stereotypical white names from Brad to Cletus I wounder how these "studies" would go. And we can agree on one this the education system has failed me. I got pushed through Philadelphia public schools and handed a diploma when in reality I would hardly pass an 8th grande competency test. But the american education system is a topic for another thread.
 
It's a rhetorical question as I clearly think i get no advantage for being white. You can google search how Obama is a lizard man and get results. Does that make it true?

Ok, but when you ask questions like that, I can only question how aware are you really about racism and how it has plagued the US. That question was the equivalent of asking any novice question on any subject.
 
his post said "As for blacks and other ethnic groups for many forms/applications, checking something other than white/other can often give the person more weight or a better acceptance for colleges, schools and scholarships."

and you replied saying it is a myth based on an article only addressing the scholarship aspect of his post

Yeah, It is not true. Myths are not true. So in regards to the point he made scholarships I said it is a myth. I don't how to deconstruct the sentence any further. Is their something you disagree about the statement I made? Do you not believe what minorities don't receive more scholarship opportunities? Other then that I don't know what were discussing.
 
The exclusion order was to place them into internment. Are you somehow arguing that the order to place them into internment is legal, but the actual internment was illegal?

"All other persons" does not give slavery legal merit. That's like arguing that there is legal merit to a "Corruption of Blood" punishment because the Constitution allows for giving a traitor such a punishment during the traitor's lifetime, or that the death penalty for minors cannot be abolished because the Constitutional has references to the government taking away people's lives.

The declaration of slavery being unconstitutional would not interfere with the 3/5ths clause, since former slaves would simply be counted as free persons.

No the exclusion order said that people of Japanese decent could not be in the military exclusion zone, which Korematsu was, and that's what the Supreme Court ruled on. That the next step after his exclusion was relocation to an internment camp was explicitly not addressed.

As for your argument on the constitutionality of slavery, it's interesting. I think however that the existence of the 3/5ths compromise and the 1808 date for the possible ending of the slave trade put into the Constitution what we already know: that slavery was meant to be legal in the U.S. and that those provisions were created as guidelines.
 
This surprises no one.

If anyone applied a critical eye to this then yeah It should't.

Ok, but when you ask questions like that, I can only question how aware are you really about racism and how it has plagued the US. That question was the equivalent of asking any novice question on any subject.

I'm going to stop replying to stuff like this until I have a formed rebuttal about the links I have been given. Because people are gonna dump more links on me and I'm still trying to get through what was given to me in the first place. But let me make this clear as of right now I don't believe in any systemic oppression of PoCs
 
If anyone applied a critical eye to this then yeah It should't.



I'm going to stop replying to stuff like this until I have a formed rebuttal about the links I have been given. Because people are gonna dump more links on me and I'm still trying to get through what was given to me in the first place.

"Until I have a formed rebuttal"

That tells me that you're going into them looking to rebut them, rather than the possibility that you are maybe uninformed.
 
Yeah, It is not true. Myths are not true. So in regards to the point he made scholarships I said it is a myth. I don't how to deconstruct the sentence any further. Is their something you disagree about the statement I made? Do you not believe what minorities don't receive more scholarship opportunities? Other then that I don't know what were discussing.

I'm saying you only addressed a third of his point, and the least important part of it at that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom