Reparations

Quote:

Quote:
It pales in comparison to the "punitive" tax paying (Black people were subjected to and still are, IMO...) of which plenty of living White people are, in fact, complicit with - i.e. Jim Crow segregation. That alone is grounds for reparations and that's the LIVING history of this country which again has living people who are complicit with it.

You are welcome to your opinion.

Now you are being hilariously ridiculous.
That shows how insanely biased your *subjective* opinion is.

By any objective standard when YOU raise the issue of tax paying as punitive, which by definition is appropriate for slavery for sure and undoubtedly for the LIVING historical legacy of Jim Crow segregation - i.e. punitive damages = damages awarded in excess of normal compensation to the plaintiff to punish a defendant for a serious wrong - there is no way you can pretend the so-called "punishment" non-Blacks would incur would remotely resemble the real physical, social, political and economic punishment Blacks have endured while still paying their taxes, still fighting in wars to defend the very country that sanctioned/sanctions their "punishment".

Yes, I'm entitled to my opinion as you are yours but you and I both know what is right!

You actually give more credance to what Noah The African said when it comes to this notion. The only thing that will "hurt" unwilling Americans, White or otherwise, is their racist pride/ego.

Enter again: THE SILENCE OF THE HYPOCRITE .... on the subject of reparations for Japanese American that caused no "appreciable resentment" from the same American public that's so up in arms about Reparations for African-Americans. Again, by the LIVING history and legacy of Jim Crow segregation, America's apartheid, alone Reparations for Blacks is on solid footing.

But, you tell me what accounts for the different degree of reactions to the Japanese and African-American cases except the pervasiveness of racism and the negative racial stigma of Blacks - a direct, persistent, enduring legacy of slavery?

Again, I have not and do not require [Whites] to foot the bill for reparations. So why you persist on mentioning it in your exchange with me is evidence that you have no interest as suspected in what I have to say, exposing you and your invitation as the farce it always was.

"This is all subjective"... Crying or Very sad

I thought I told you your opinion to me was irrelevant!
I damn sure don't want to hear your admittedly subjective BS - i.e. your stupid opinion that's only relative to some trumped up BS that's in your mind and has nothing to do with reality.

That's exactly what I said to you before. Your audience, your response, your opinion, your thoughts, reflections, interpretations, imaginations, etc. are all irrelevant.

Now, tell me again how relevant what you thing about reparations is to BLACK PEOPLE WHO FAVOR IT!

Remember the poll 67% of Blacks in favor (55% in even more conservative ones - i.e. still a majority) vs. what??? 96% of Whites who disapprove? And FYI... reparations have always been an issue/concern within the Black community. It is just now becoming one on the national scene because of its growth. So your wishful thinking, hoping that I am not "representative" of Blacks on this issue is sorely misplaced. Come to grips with what I guess you perceive as your "punitive" nightmare...

Closing your eyes and saying, "Go away! You're not real! You're not real!" is not going to work. You might want to back away from the fantasy tube. Reparations is here to stay and you better brace yourself to mount a better defense than what you have already otherwise, if the opposition was dependent on you, you might as well wave the WHITE flag!

0 Replies

Sorry about following this tangent.

I think reading critically requires a sort of personal dictionary, usually a glossary, because no one knows every word in their language(s).

The longest glossaries I've kept resulted from reading War and Peace and The Name of The Rose.

I also keep English-Spanish glossaries at work because one of my jobs there is to translate. That has lead me to keep comparative glossaries in which I compare etymology and deviances thereof within the two languages. It's pretty fascinating.

Please, carry on.

0 Replies

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:

So effectively, I guess I understand... You have no other ammunition but some lame assertion that my position is about personal gain.

I never said it was about personal gain, frankly I don't care about the gain.

What I care about is that you are arguing for benefits to persons (doesn't matter if it's you or others) that did not endure the damages you cite as the reasons.

Quote:

Since that BS about "punitive" tax paying or the supposed unfair tax burden that Whites primarily feel they would be subject to... a recurring argument of yours... has been obliterated you have to resort to some silly BS.

It was only "obliterated" in your own mind Noah. Laughing

Quote:

Craven, you don't have to. If Blacks by your own logic are the "racially defined group" to receive the benefits from reparations via "reimbursement" as you put it what "racially defined group" - which you and I know to be one group, otherwise how else can it be "racially defined" - are, in your mind, the ones to bear the "burden" of it?

You aren't making sense. If the group that will receive the reparations is racially defined then the other group is also racially defined.

You seem to want the other group to be a single race, which is simply foolish because by racially defining one group the remaining group was also racially defined through exclusion.

Another basic lesson in logic for you Noah. :wink:

Quote:

Okay name those "racially defined groups" in two races!

See? LOL Noah, they don't have to be two races. Blacks and non-blacks are two groups that are racially defined.

Your lesson in basic logic continues. Cool

Quote:

You are weak!

I'm not the one reduced to such playground namecalling Noah. <shrugs>

Quote:

Like I said don't talk to me about punitive tax paying. As far as being "reimbursed" then you actually forward my argument that Blacks currently are "punitively" taxed.

Almost everyone thinks their taxes are punitive. <shrugs>

Quote:

And none of your stupid statements can dismiss the violently punitive tax paying Blacks have been submitted to within the LIVING history of this country. Notice, I said my parent (and I meant to say my grandparents as well) LIVED through a brutally punitive tax paying period. Were they not only paid taxes for essentially services they did not get from the gov't but basically helped financed their own oppression.

Frankly I think you have a good point. The segregationalist era was one in which I think blacks have a legitimate gripe insofar as taxes are concerned.

If I had my druthers the taxes from this time would be refunded.

I just don't know if that is viable (don't know the numbers off the top of my head) and I'm not sure that this wouldn't set a precedent wherein people start demaning rebates if their government doesn't serve them properly.

So let's skip the rest of this part of your rant, you are preaching to the choir (even if I am not convinced it would be viable).

Quote:

Find the statement where I said I won't to be paid.... You can't!

You are right, I never found a statement of yours wherein you state you won't be paid through reparations. Laughing

Quote:

So perhaps you are projecting/protecting your own self-interest here (you admitted this is subjective at least on your part) and presuming my motivations are like yours - all about self.

I don't presume it's all about self. You took the above too personally.

Frankly I bet you would gladly forego your portion of the reparations if that would help the reparations to be paid.

But you still miss the point. Is it about slavert? Modern racism? Segregation?

Or is it just all of this friction lumped into one?

See, slavery has the time drawback in terms of living victims and victimizers.

Modern racism has laws against it and each individual is already free to litigate and seek compensation. It's also not sanctioned by government, making it more logical to seek damages against the individuals.

Beyond that I think you have a damn good point about government sanctioned segregation and taxes.

It's not something I'd previously thought of, but people who paid taxes but were excluded from schools etc simply got ripped off. Evil or Very Mad

Quote:

But oh where... oh where is your outrage at the "punitive" tax paying that had to occur in order to grant Japanese Americans reparations?

Were Japanese Americans granted reparations only if their immediate family was imprisoned by the American government?

If so, my criteria of direct victim and victimizer would have been met.

Quote:

Again, I'm sure I was paying taxes then. I damn sure know my parents were... And I know neither of us had anything to do with Japanese internment, let alone being alive at the time. And, of course, from you... I get THE SILENCE OF A HYPROCRITE!

LOL, funny. Sure it wasn't the silence of those not yet alive? Or the silence of those not in America at the time? Or the silence of you not knowing me?

LOL

Your next post is much of that playground namecalling you are frequently reduced to so I'll have to do quickie, your insults mean more to you than to me.

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:

Yes, I'm entitled to my opinion as you are yours but you and I both know what is right!

I disagree. <shrugs>

Quote:

Again, by the LIVING history and legacy of Jim Crow segregation, America's apartheid, alone Reparations for Blacks is on solid footing.

I've already agreed with you above. I think a refund on black taxes paid during segregationalist times is fair.

Quote:

I thought I told you your opinion to me was irrelevant!
I damn sure don't want to hear your admittedly subjective BS - i.e. your stupid opinion that's only relative to some trumped up BS that's in your mind and has nothing to do with reality.

Noah, you are getting hysterical again. I'll wait for you to regain your senses.

0 Replies

Quote:

I'll wait for you to regain your senses.

I'll wait for your views to become relevant to me... your druthers and all!
Get a grip!

I haven't, won't and don't ask you for your opinion about anything. Preaching to the choir or trying to get your azz saved!... I don't give a damn what you think! So why are you commenting - concerning what you think is a good idea as far as what I say?

What in the hell makes you think that I care whether you think something is "viable" or not?

And what's with this:

Quote:

Were Japanese Americans granted reparations only if their immediate family was imprisoned by the American government?

If so, my criteria of direct victim and victimizer would have been met.

First of all, do some GOT DAMN research! You're suppose to at least have a cursory knowledge of reparations type issues before intelligently commenting on any particular case.

Second, who the f@ck cares about "your criteria"?
There you go presuming that I asked about that. I asked you about where was your opposition and the opposition of other Americans who are so opposed to reparations for Blacks when it came to Japanese Americans.
Now, if you equate internment with imprisonment and since their reparations have been granted without the comparative outrage that reparations for African-Americans engenders, then I guess their imprisonment far outweighs lynchings, segregation and all the things associated with that.

The ridiculous thing about all that is African-Americans were not the kinsmen of an "enemy" state....

There really is no excuse!
Oh... and where is the "viability" question now?

PS:
You wouldn't have to ask what or which era reparations is about if you knew what you were talking about. Again, I have not asked you for your commentary - aka You can keep it to yourself!
"I think you have a damn good point about government sanctioned segregation and taxes" Surprised

Ahhh... I don't give a damn what you think! Shocked

What is this the Validation Forum?

Quote:

Almost everyone thinks their taxes are punitive.

Then what the hell is or rather has been your point?
Your quip about reparations being about trying to exact revenge via "punitive" taxing?

See that's where trying to be cute catches you up...
I guess now I'm empowered to say,
Mad

"So what if Whites feel reparations is "punitive"... that's what they think about taxes anyway!"

Oh but... only if that was true across the board.

I'll go back to the curious $87 billion Thurgood Marshall Plan I recently heard about. Sure, some Americans griped a little about using that money (that went to Iraqi reconstruction) here at home... But guess what!! That's exactly what the Plan would do! So we all win!! Razz

Yeah, right! Rolling Eyes

Mannn..... I see the racism coming out if that was to happen! I mean... damn... "they're" already crying about Affirmative Action!
(That's like Allen Iverson commenting on his squabbles with Larry Brown :
"Practice!?" We're talking about Practice!? Man!... I mean... We're talking about Practice!? Not the Game, (as in not the real thing) but Practice!? )

Embarrassed

No wonder why there is so much gnashing of teeth! Laughing

0 Replies

You are even more hysterical now. I'll wait for you to calm down. <shrugs>

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

You are even more hysterical now. I'll wait for you to calm down. <shrugs>

NO! The problem is I explained all this to you while you made your "invitation" (with all its contrived little overatures).

Don't confuse, like a fool, my words typed on a msg board with nothing else but that. I have yet to figure out how [weak debaters] like yourself determine the emotional state of someone via typed words. It's just one of the many silly ways you try to avoid what you are confronted with.

Somehow, deep inside you can't deal with your irrelevancy... You poor little ego can't take that feeling of obsolescence. You actually think I care and have solicited your opinion or something else even more ridiculous.

All the shrugs and a whole lot of hugs apparently need to come your way. You seem like you need someone to believe in your importance. So put on the act that and, yes, seize the opportunity to pretend that your whole position isn't shattered because forceful words were directed towards you.

You are good for just that acting... acting like you don't know what those words mean and that they reflect me being upset or whatever to where I need to "calm down".... FOOL!!!

Get a clue!

Just like you can play Mr. Idiot on purpose - aka The Little Kid in you that says, "I didn't say that" and then proceed to make up new meanings of words with clearly understood meanings - I can and do purposely say what I say (or write if you like, considering you other Alter-Ego of Mr. Semantics from the kingdom of Utter Ridiculous.)

[Hint: non-black is not a "racial" group - i.e. it is not a "race". You can't accurately define, in detail anything by simply stating what it is not. You know and I know you have to state what it actually is. And your little (fall back) tactic of never clearly stating your position provides you no cover, logically or otherwise, of your clear contradictions and the complications of your line of reasoning.]

But, it's really silly (as you are)...

Just remember you and your views are IRRELEVANT!
Your opinion, audience, etc. have not and is not solicited...
However, I do recall you soliciting mine. (And don't confuse points/questions within things we've debated/contended as my solicitation of your ideas. That's just part of the academic exercise here which is and has been "academic" - aka over and done with for a while; hence, your retreat to your playful nature. Your default mode for when your ideas are exposed for what they are.)

0 Replies

Quote:

I thought I told you your opinion to me was irrelevant!
I damn sure don't want to hear your admittedly subjective BS - i.e. your stupid opinion that's only relative to some trumped up BS that's in your mind and has nothing to do with reality.

Noah, you are getting hysterical again. I'll wait for you to regain your senses.

I hear you "Laughing To Keep From Crying", Craven... Crying or Very sad

My ideas are as relevant as yours... Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

Actually I deal with your insults quite well. <shrugs>

I'll continue to wait for your hysterical outbursts to subside. I've never seen someone so worked up about trying to say someone is irrelevant. Laughing

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Actually I deal with your insults quite well. <shrugs>

I'll continue to wait for your hysterical outbursts to subside. I've never seen someone so worked up about trying to say someone is irrelevant.

Yeah so worked up while you and your views are so worked over!

That's why you try to use my "outburst" as an escape. Deal with my substance "quite well" for a change instead of weaseling...

What you call worked up is just a friendly reminder!... because obviously you don't get the point! And I guess since I'm so worked up and hysterical that accounts for me continuing to post here!

Say at least something that makes some sense, Craven. I'm as worked up as you are. Like I said, what I say, I say purposely! Sorry, if I don't express myself like you do. I find it hard to be dishonest... apparently you don't. You're just like a little kid. You think lying = "I Tricked You!"... or you being exposed and the truth being none about what you say [implied] results in your "I'm not gonna tell! You have to keep guess! (I'm gonna tell you you're wrong everytime anyway...).

Grow up and learn how to make proper correlations.... The reason why I'm so worked up is that you think or rather continue to pretend (when you know better) that you position has withstood the test of our exchanges. Yeah... I guess that's why you resorted to "You're entitled to your opinion" type rhetoric, huh? ...And by your own admission you apparently never have "seen" a lot of the things I have presented.

Release yourself from your Euro-think. Passion and Emotions are not mutually exclusive to logic and rational thought. We see with all your supposed "reserveness" you still have failed to present sound logic... Admittedly you acknowledge what you say is markedly *subjective*, not to mention your other little games... So why should I waste my time addressing you from a pure, deliberate post-after-post logical basis?

Silly! This is just how I get down! When you quit trying to buy time for you to come up with something you think is relevant or when you quit coming up with sh@t that's irrelevant then we'll talk or debate reasoning and logic.

Until then... I will continue to entertain myself (since you can't do it logically or now even comically).

0 Replies

Noah, when you post something of "substance" I will address it. As it stands you've just been reduced to bunch of childish insults, the rage of bleating sheep.

And like I said, as long as you are reduced to such hysteria I will wait for you to calm down. <shrugs>

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Noah, when you post something of "substance" I will address it. As it stands you've just been reduced to bunch of childish insults, the rage of bleating sheep.

And like I said, as long as you are reduced to such hysteria I will wait for you to calm down. <shrugs>

You keep getting things confused... Your warped sense of self-importance is distorting your understanding of things! YOU... you invited me to post [respond] on this thread, not the other way around. So, if anyone who should be waiting on substance to respond to, it would be me.

Seeing as how you, with all your superficial civility have presented no substance to respond and since you have proven time and again that you don't - have any sustainable line of reasoning that could rise to the level of "substantive" - then what this thread has been "reduced" to is a result of what you have failed to do - i.e. state a clear position and stick to it no matter how many holes are in it.

The ball is in your court...

Again, you invited me to post here...
So, I'm waiting on you to "man up"!.... and stop the little games and pretenses...

When you play games... This is the way I get down!
When you stop playing games and when YOU present some substance then I'll "calm down" - i.e. act in a way that you feel is appropriate.

Now, if "Much of this is subjective" as you say then you have wasted my time from the get-go! If you can't even try to present a logical argument, questions or concerns that reflect something beyond your own personal reflections/interests then what was your purpose in the first place? If much of this is subjective then what's the use in discussing it?

See... you can't be honest and forthright with your intentions but have the nerve to ask me to "calm down" and treat this as a serious discussion? When you show you can be serious in point-and-counterpoint then I'll be serious with civility, etc.

(I do recall none of this was not suppose to be about what you thought... You just wanted to here from me... Matter of fact, you claimed you would refrain from commenting - on what I say - or something to that effect. We see how long that lasted.)

When you can grow some balls and find an honest, non-pretentious bone in your body... call me! Cool

0 Replies

I will make no calls to you about any bone of mine. ;-)

Noah, you might think slinging ad hominems is the hight of debate but it's boring to me. I don't mind it as long as there's a topical discussion and the barbs are merely rhetorical icing on the cake but when it's your only stock and store it's just juvenille.

If you include arguments about the topic I will respond, as I always have. When you are reduced to nothing but these hysterical insults there's nothing to comment on. <shrugs>

Post about the topic and I'll address your post. What I will not do is entertain your every tantrum when the debate's not going your way.

So if you can't address the topic and merely resort to a string of insults, you will have to insult me in absentia. <shrugs>

0 Replies

I have only one question for now; who is going to get reperations?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I will make no calls to you about any bone of mine. ;-)

Noah, you might think slinging ad hominems is the hight of debate but it's boring to me. I don't mind it as long as there's a topical discussion and the barbs are merely rhetorical icing on the cake but when it's your only stock and store it's just juvenille.

If you include arguments about the topic I will respond, as I always have. When you are reduced to nothing but these hysterical insults there's nothing to comment on. <shrugs>

Post about the topic and I'll address your post. What I will not do is entertain your every tantrum when the debate's not going your way.

So if you can't address the topic and merely resort to a string of insults, you will have to insult me in absentia. <shrugs>

Like I said, you obviously got something twisted and confused.

You invited me. You have bored me with your usual tactics. My presence here is in response to you and not the other way around. You have provided nothing to comment on save the spiral ridiculous.

I have not and did not request your presence here, Craven... so you being present/absent or not is not a concern for me. It was however a concern for you with regards to me.

I guess my feelings are supposed to be hurt or something because you decline to present substance - something worth commenting on?

Craven, YOU INVITED ME... what's unclear about that?

Quote:

I do want to have a serious discussion with you on a new thread though. It would be of very limited scope and I just want to listen and ask a few questions.

The topic would be reparations and implementation. I want to hear what your precise ideas on reparations are and am not interested in discussing the validity of the idea, just the implementation to see what you have in mind.

Interested?
---
If you are discriminated against you can file a lawsuit and attempt to collect reparations.

But anywho, I really think you can tell me more on that subject that I can tell you. I want to know about your ideas of implementation. If I start a thread will you join?
---
I am also willing to listen to your ideas on reparations. I probably won't opine much (as it's polemic) but I have some questions.

If you do not wish to, that's fine. It's an earnest offer there for the taking should you change your mind.
---
So without needing an agreement I will state that any serious topic (e.g. not about Noah, rivalries and such) you discuss I will trea seriously.

So I again extend my invitation to you to discuss reparations. No need to explicitly accept my invitation. I'll create a thread (perhaps tomorrow) and you can join if you think it worth your while.
---
Well Noah, I've created the thread. I know you said you weren't interested but you alternate between shying from serious discussion with me and claiming that you've aleady done so.

So on the off chance that you are up to it here you go.

That's like about FIVE times if not more that you asked me to post on this thread, using words like "serious discussion" which I guess was suppose to mean you would raise serious questions.... and I did catch that part about you taking a listening, non-argumentative role didn't I?

Well, as I said and suspected....

WHAT'S YOUR EXCUSE NOW, CRAVEN? Question

0 Replies

oH!?? How could I have missed this one? The header for this thread:

Quote:

Reparations are expectedly a polemic subject. And on the off chance that one of the Noah's are interested in representing their support of reparations I decided to create this thread.

What I am initially interested in hearing is the practical implementation of reparations as the supporters idealize it.

In other words, if you support reparations for slavery what is your ideal way of implementing this plan....

...I doubt that I'll get any takers but I am very interested in hearing what the ideas are for the practical implementation of such reparations. I prefer not to discuss the validity of said reparations here as I earnestly wish to hear what some of the practical ideas are, as opposed to arguing about their validity.

Viability....??? Validity??? What's the difference, huh Crave? Laughing

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I have only one question for now; who is going to get reperations?

Consult the SECOND link on my first post on the first page of this thread...

0 Replies

Noah,

I did indeed invite you and discussion progressed, then you started having these episodes. Rolling Eyes

Like I said, I won't be playing your playground games with you. And all the taunting in the world won't change that.

When you are prepared to cut the hysteria and discuss the topic without your insults I might regain my interest.

Regards

0 Replies

This is from the second link of the first post: "Those groups that have been injured have the right to obtain from the government or corporation responsible for the injuries that which they need to repair and heal themselves."

Who exact are "those groups that have been injured?" It would seem to me that "those groups" would be almost impossible to identify. And when it says the "injured have the right to obtain from the government," who is the "injured?" Since many Americans are new immigrants to this country who pay taxes, why must they "pay reparations" for any injury they have not caused? Were all blacks in this country injured? What about blacks that have immigrated to this country during the last half of the 20th century? Are they included in the reperations group? How many generations do we trace the families that have been injured?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

This is from the second link of the first post: "Those groups that have been injured have the right to obtain from the government or corporation responsible for the injuries that which they need to repair and heal themselves."

Who exact are "those groups that have been injured?" It would seem to me that "those groups" would be almost impossible to identify. And when it says the "injured have the right to obtain from the government," who is the "injured?" Since many Americans are new immigrants to this country who pay taxes, why must they "pay reparations" for any injury they have not caused? Were all blacks in this country injured? What about blacks that have immigrated to this country during the last half of the 20th century? Are they included in the reperations group? How many generations do we trace the families that have been injured?

CI:

Why do you feel this is important? And what does it really change in regards to how you feel about this issue?

It is my contention that this is a side-issue at best.
The essential question is do you feel that Black people (however you would define them as a group) are entitled to Reparations are not?

For me, this is all rhetorical. As I told Craven, I have no desire to debate over Reparations... Yes, I may engage in an exchange over some ideas but I sincerely hope that you don't think that this is not the first time some has asked me the same exact questions.

If you had actually read my exchange here with Craven you would have known exactly who I feel are eminently qualified to receive reparations. Since you either ignored that or didn't care to pay attention to that for whatever reason, I'm inclined to think that you are not serious just like Craven. You just want to argue for argument sake.

Again, the whole thing hinges around the central and essential question of whether you agree with it or not. The how's and where to's are practically irrelevant... To use a Noah The African term all that is subterfuge. I believe that if you sincerely believed that African-Americans have throughout their history suffered 'injury' worthy in your mind of reparations, the hairsplitting over who qualifies to be and African-American or rather a reparations recipient would not cause you such a problem.

Now, to state what I said to Craven...
At the very least, IMO, the LIVING VICTIMS of the LIVING HISTORY of Jim Crow Segregation are ones whoe should receive reparations without question.

I'll go back to something else I said - this was made particularly about the idea of talking about IMPLEMENTATION and not arguing over the validity of reparations, the way inwhich Craven attempted to frame this thread: [list]...it is obvious that if a person disagrees with an idea in theory then regardless as to how 'good' the practice is that same person will not see the merits of it, regardless of what conditions are met. (Consult the AA thread RE: COMMON GROUND)

It is definitely necessary for people to agree in principle with the basic idea in order to even consider how to implement it and/or discuss practical ways to implement it because the "validity" of the idea and the resources/means it will take to bring it to fruition are all wrapped up together. People have a tough enough time agreeing on how to implement a program that they agree is needed, much less trying to see the merits of implementing something they vehemently oppose. [/list]

So, CI, I don't think there is any use to answering your questions because I don't think even 'satisfatory' answers will matter much to you. I don't think your position hinges on those very questions, does it? If you are honest and that is the case, then why even raise the questions in the first place?

While I won't dispute what you posted above but I wonder how you missed or how thorough your search was to overlook or not look far enough to find a direct answer or at least a direct response to the very question of: Who Should Receive Reparations?

(scroll down.... it reads as thus)

Quote:

Within the broadest definition, all Black people of African descent in the United States should receive reparations in the form of changes in or elimination of laws and practices that allow them to be treated differently and less well than White people. For example, ending racial profiling and discrimination in the provision of health care, providing scholarship and community development funds for Black people of African descent, and supporting processes of self determination will not only benefit descendants of enslaved Africans, but all African descendant peoples in the United States who because of their color are victims of the vestiges of slavery. This is similar to the Rosewood, Florida reparations package, where some forms of reparations were provided only to persons who descended from those who were injured, died and lost their homes and other forms were made available to all Black people of African descent in Florida.

My only comment is that "race" is a social construct. Emphasis on social - as in the overall social ramifications and consequences. Reparations is not just for slavery but includes Jim Crow segregation and even on-going racism (as noted above). Considering that segregation, for instance, was no respecter of [Black] persons - i.e. Blacks were not merely discriminated against as individuals - then all this talk about trying to figure out who exactly qualifies is shown for the ruse that it is.

For any such claims for reparations and any organ set-up to distribute such compensation, there will undoubtedly be a criteria and qualifications for who qualifies and for how much (so to speak).
That's simply all a part of the process of distribution.

Quote:

What about blacks that have immigrated to this country during the last half of the 20th century?

Exactly how many Black people do you think fit that description?
And what is your cut-off date/year?

How does that invalidate the principle of reparations?

Again, "race" is a social construct. That construct has not changed. By all types of indices Black now is like Black then, an indicator of differiental treatment in society not as individuals but as a group. Slavery and Segregation just happen to be intensified versions of it.

And if you think reparations/restitution to Jews, for example, went solely to the survivors then you are mistaken. Case & point: The creation of the state of Israel. I don't think that only the "survivors" of the Holocaust are the only ones who "benefit" from that form of reparations to them.

0 Replies

If black is a "social construct," then let's also include all cultures as a "social construct" (human construct). For example, all birds are birds even though there are different species of birds. That's also a human construct. Reperations for which specicies? Well, the ones that were injured. Okay....... If you know anything about the recent history of Africa, you'll find Africans treating Africans quite inhumanly. Why aren't they seeking reperations? There are Japanese in Japan (today) treating Japanese quite inhumanly. Why aren't they seeking reperations? Oh, it's a human trait. Wholesale reperations on the basis of "injured" doesn't make any sense to me! You can talk about the Jews and Japanese Americans all day long, but good luck in seeking reperations for black-Americans. Dream on; you ain't gonna get it.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know