PDA

View Full Version : Do Africans in America have a right to a piece of the United States as their own ...


Volcana
Apr 17th, 2006, 12:49 AM
.. country?

Of the term '40 acres and a mule' doesn't mean anything to you, you really aren't qualified to comment, so this thread will likely, and deservedly, die without a trace.

What I'm really getting at is, what give ANY people a RIGHT to a nation-state?

That's a bit of an arcane concept, but it's actually pretty central to the state of the world today.

TF Chipmunk
Apr 17th, 2006, 12:56 AM
That is so absurd. That's taking away from all the rest of the people who pioneered in America as well. Giving land to start the slaves off right does not mean the same thing as giving them their own country.

RVD
Apr 17th, 2006, 01:12 AM
That is so absurd. That's taking away from all the rest of the people who pioneered in America as well. Giving land to start the slaves off right does not mean the same thing as giving them their own country.Actually, if memory serves, I believe this was attempted in many regions of the U.S. Unfortunately, however, these areas [in the form of townships, donated lands, and communities] didn't last very long, due to vigilante white protestors opposed to what they viewed as an 'insurgency' or the desegregation of their county or, state. John A Roark is far more knowledgeable than I am, in reference to American history. I'll PM him about this.. :)

Incidentally, you won't find much on these townships and the like, because the state and federal level considered it best to keep suck matters quiet. I only know of them because of elder relatives.

But in direct answer to Volcana's question. I'm of the opinion that it wouldn't work. There are still far too many racist elements in the U.S. And the American leadership itself would be opposed to the move, since they'd view it as a major form of 'reparation'; which we all know the U.S. government, and majority population is fervently opposed to. :sad:

On the other hand, if we were to agree to turn these areas into massive gambling resorts, that would probably sweeten the deal for a good many Senators and House members. :lol:

RVD
Apr 17th, 2006, 01:20 AM
.. country?

Of the term '40 acres and a mule' doesn't mean anything to you, you really aren't qualified to comment, so this thread will likely, and deservedly, die without a trace.

What I'm really getting at is, what give ANY people a RIGHT to a nation-state?

That's a bit of an arcane concept, but it's actually pretty central to the state of the world today.Are we talking legal or moral rights? ;)

Volcana
Apr 17th, 2006, 02:12 AM
Are we talking legal or moral rights? ;)Well, both are subjective. However, I'm leaning toward 'legal'. All former slaves, by order of Presdient Lincoln (if I'm not mistaken) were to receive, 40 acres of land, and a mule. These were the original reparations for slavery. But most didn't get it. It's a well establiched legal fact that descendants can sue for what they would have inherited. the children of Holocaust survivors recover various possessions of their parents and grand-parents on the same legal principal.

TF Chipmunk
Apr 17th, 2006, 02:14 AM
Well, both are subjective. However, I'm leaning toward 'legal'. All former slaves, by order of Presdient Lincoln (if I'm not mistaken) were to receive, 40 acres of land, and a mule. These were the original reparations for slavery. But most didn't get it. It's a well establiched legal fact that descendants can sue for what they would have inherited. the children of Holocaust survivors recover various possessions of their parents and grand-parents on the same legal principal.
But again, this is very different from having their own country.

kiwifan
Apr 17th, 2006, 02:17 AM
Are we talking legal or moral rights? ;)

Moral = Maybe

Legal = No

Reality = You know damn well our 40 acres would be in the middle of a damn desert or above the tree line in some mountain range...

...and some people would sell their shit off for new Jordans immediately. :lol:

And by the way, if you read stuff like Zinn's "People's History of the USA", lots of the old robber barons used to buy off poor people's "land grants/vouchers" cheap back in the day so I'm fairly confident that we would have ended up Swindled/Jim Crowed/Rosewooded out of the land and mule if we did get them. ;)

You can call me cynical,

or call me a realist,

just don't call me late for Lunch. :devil:

Kirt12255
Apr 17th, 2006, 02:22 AM
:confused: That's a really tough question....I know here in Australia we have MABO and such as indigenous Australians fight for "Sacred Land", at the moment we have a group camping in King's Domain (pretty much central Melbourne). When settlement hit Melbourne, the local group were bought out with tea, flour and sugar. They are trying to give it back and take back their land. I guess the question is who long it too long? I fence sit with land battles here because I can see both sides of the story. So I guess in hind-sight...I'm not sure...excellent question though :worship:

Sam L
Apr 17th, 2006, 02:27 AM
Is it that time of the month again? :confused: :sigh:

spokenword73
Apr 17th, 2006, 02:35 AM
Native Americans here have sovernity, don't they? I know in California, certain tribes are allowed to run and profit from casinos without paying anything to the government.
Why don't they do the same for African Americans?
Anyway thanks for asking such a deep question on this beautiful Easter Sunday :wavey:

winone23
Apr 17th, 2006, 02:41 AM
Why bring this up African Americans are never going to get any reparations! Lincoln never intended to give blacks the 40 acres and mule, the man actually wanted to send freed slaves back to Africa after being in the United States for several generations.

winone23
Apr 17th, 2006, 02:43 AM
I feel bad for the plight of Native Americans, I wish they were represented more in American society because they deserve that utmost respect!

Reuchlin
Apr 17th, 2006, 03:26 AM
"what give ANY people a RIGHT to a nation-state?"
Good question.

Scotso
Apr 17th, 2006, 03:32 AM
Native Americans here have sovernity, don't they? I know in California, certain tribes are allowed to run and profit from casinos without paying anything to the government.
Why don't they do the same for African Americans?
Anyway thanks for asking such a deep question on this beautiful Easter Sunday :wavey:

Pseudo-sovereignty. They function as small nations, but the United States is obviously in control. It goes against the notion of "sovereignty" that there can be a greater power.

As for the black Americans having the same, I really don't think they want that. It's not as if it's worked out that well for most American Indians.

Scotso
Apr 17th, 2006, 03:32 AM
I feel bad for the plight of Native Americans, I wish they were represented more in American society because they deserve that utmost respect!

Some of them, but I've met a few that don't. :shrug:

Scotso
Apr 17th, 2006, 03:34 AM
And if black Americans want the 40 acres and a mule, I say that we give it to them. Of course, only 40 acres and a mule for each person who was a slave then to be distributed amongst their descendants, as it would have actually occured.

However, you must know that in this country, as with all countries, while the government allows you to have a deed to the land, you never actually OWN it.

RVD
Apr 17th, 2006, 03:46 AM
Well, both are subjective. However, I'm leaning toward 'legal'. All former slaves, by order of Presdient Lincoln (if I'm not mistaken) were to receive, 40 acres of land, and a mule. These were the original reparations for slavery. But most didn't get it. It's a well establiched legal fact that descendants can sue for what they would have inherited.O.K., I can see your point. And that's a credible argument. Legally, they can sue. But I'm thinking it would be difficult for many to prove descendancy. But it would be great.

...the children of Holocaust survivors recover various possessions of their parents and grand-parents on the same legal principal.all due in large part to the Jewish lobbyists. But we won't go there. :devil:Moral = Maybe

Legal = No

Reality = You know damn well our 40 acres would be in the middle of a damn desert or above the tree line in some mountain range...Moral = Civil War. :tape:

Legal = decades long litigation, aimed at bankrupting the pentitioners...and some people would sell their shit off for new Jordans immediately. :lol:I considered that possibility as well. :haha:And by the way, if you read stuff like Zinn's "People's History of the USA", lots of the old robber barons used to buy off poor people's "land grants/vouchers" cheap back in the day so I'm fairly confident that we would have ended up Swindled/Jim Crowed/Rosewooded out of the land and mule if we did get them. ;)

You can call me cynical,

or call me a realist,

just don't call me late for Lunch. :devil:
I'm not familiar with that book, but I'm sure the government would also do it's part to bully, cajole, and intimidate for their wealthy corporate cohorts. Or how about a nice neo-tax bracket aimed solely at the new land owners? :devil:
There are so many ways in which the U.S. would employ to slowly recover there 'loses'. :fiery:

Or maybe it is I who is being cynical? :p

kiwifan
Apr 17th, 2006, 04:28 AM
I'm not familiar with that book, but I'm sure the government would also do it's part to bully, cajole, and intimidate for their wealthy corporate cohorts. Or how about a nice neo-tax bracket aimed solely at the new land owners? :devil:
There are so many ways in which the U.S. would employ to slowly recover there 'loses'. :fiery:

Or maybe it is I who is being cynical? :p

Great book, it tells American history from the "working class/people who got their asses kicked" perspective. It is very biased against our Founding Fathers, Captains of Industry, etc. My only criticism of the book is that every progressive move by the government is portayed as a wicked move to pacify the working man just as they were on the verge of 'the Revolution' :lol: :tape:

Now back to Reparations, I've figured it out...

...the land will be in Alaska, the individuals would have to share the 40 with all descendants from the 1860s (so it would most likely work out to at most 1/2 an acre and a hoof each) and of course they would offer each recipient a new car for their share of the Alaska wilderness they just were awarded.

Once they've gotten all the land back...I mean, I don't want to relocate to Alaska, do you. :shrug:

The lots would then be sold to their real purchaser...some oil company owned by Rumsfeld and Wolfwitz' kids...

...and then certain laws would be amended and the oil drilling would begin. :devil: :p :devil: :p :devil:

Fingon
Apr 17th, 2006, 05:00 AM
Now back to Reparations, I've figured it out...

...the land will be in Alaska,


hmmm, no, there is oil and natural gas in Alaska, they would never, ever give that up, it's more likely that they would get a piece of Manhattan.

the individuals would have to share the 40 with all descendants from the 1860s (so it would most likely work out to at most 1/2 an acre and a hoof each) and of course they would offer each recipient a new car for their share of the Alaska wilderness they just were awarded.


a new car for half an acre? doesn't sound too bad :cool:

Once they've gotten all the land back...I mean, I don't want to relocate to Alaska, do you. :shrug:

you wouldn't have to, you could live of your oil royalties comfortably in Beverly Hills, maybe you would have to take the mule with you though (too cold).

The lots would then be sold to their real purchaser...some oil company owned by Rumsfeld and Wolfwitz' kids...

now we are talking.

...and then certain laws would be amended and the oil drilling would begin. :devil: :p :devil: :p :devil:

I see your point :devil: but why to go through so much trouble when they can drill now? imagine that a few people here and there don't sell their land, they would be better off giving some land on the moon (eventually the US could claim soverignity there) than in oil rich Alaska.

Volcana
Apr 17th, 2006, 05:19 AM
a new car for half an acre? doesn't sound too badIt's VERY bad. Real Estate appreciates in value. Automobiles DE-priciate.

As a side note, how's tricks? Been a while since we crossed rhetoriocal swords.

Fingon
Apr 17th, 2006, 05:33 AM
It's VERY bad. Real Estate appreciates in value. Automobiles DE-priciate.

As a side note, how's tricks? Been a while since we crossed rhetoriocal swords.

yes, but half an acre is not likely to make any difference (unless oil companies are after it).

I guess we have both learned to read each other's comment under a different light and find out we don't disagree that much, and if we do, I at least can understand your point of view.

pav
Apr 17th, 2006, 06:11 AM
Liberia

Pheobo
Apr 17th, 2006, 06:36 AM
It won't happen because nobody cares. It sucks but it's true. Even if a significant amount of African Americans wanted to be their own country, nobody would really listen and it would just perpetuate the image of the whiny black community that does nothing but complain about being black.

kiwifan
Apr 17th, 2006, 08:11 AM
I see your point :devil: but why to go through so much trouble when they can drill now? imagine that a few people here and there don't sell their land, they would be better off giving some land on the moon (eventually the US could claim soverignity there) than in oil rich Alaska.

Why go through the motions with the UN and coming up with witnesses to "yellow cake" and developing a casual causal link between Saddam and 9/11...

...if you're just going to invade anyway. :shrug:

That's how our Govt. works. Convert it to private property "innocently" then convert that private property to "multi-national property".

Cars for Oil.

Brilliant. :p

Now of course everyone, please remember I'm just kidding about all this...reparations is just a fun mental exercise...

...ain't gonna happen and I don't lose a second of sleep thinking about it.

Mother_Marjorie
Apr 17th, 2006, 01:06 PM
.. country?

Of the term '40 acres and a mule' doesn't mean anything to you, you really aren't qualified to comment, so this thread will likely, and deservedly, die without a trace.

What I'm really getting at is, what give ANY people a RIGHT to a nation-state?

That's a bit of an arcane concept, but it's actually pretty central to the state of the world today.

WTF is that about?

Why did you mention "Africans" when you could very have mentioned any other nationality, say like "Japanese" that actually own a considerable amount of real estate in the US???

spokenword73
Apr 17th, 2006, 04:16 PM
WTF is that about?

Why did you mention "Africans" when you could very have mentioned any other nationality, say like "Japanese" that actually own a considerable amount of real estate in the US???

Volcana said:"If the term '40 acres and a mule' doesn't mean anything to you, you really aren't qualified to comment"

So why are you mentioning Japanese held real estate?:confused:

azdaja
Apr 17th, 2006, 04:44 PM
My only criticism of the book is that every progressive move by the government is portayed as a wicked move to pacify the working man just as they were on the verge of 'the Revolution' :lol: :tape:

i'm familiar with that argument. but revolution or not, pretty much all "progressive" moves by all governments everywhere were done in order to make the people keep quiet. and if people keep quiet their rights can get eroded rather quickly. on the other hand, if a government does not manage to pacify the people uprising can happen. it did not really happen in the us, but it did happen in europe often enough one way or the other.

SelesFan70
Apr 17th, 2006, 05:19 PM
By "African" do you mean the descendants of slaves?

*JR*
Apr 17th, 2006, 05:20 PM
Perhaps records could be traced and verified as to what families owned land that was tilled by slaves, and it (or other property of said families, if they sold their plantations) should be subject to redistribution (based also on how many slaves they owned, for how long, and how much they profited from slave labor). And re. determining the % of slave (and slaveowner) blood individual blacks carry today, DNA comparisons with the remains of both would make this possible. (Raising the issue of law enforcement covertly using said DNA "fingerprints" to home in on the perpetrators of unsolved crimes, of course).

John A Roark
Apr 17th, 2006, 05:23 PM
Out in my neck of the woods (Central Nebraska) we have quite the homesteading tradition. Back in the days of "160 acres", at least around here, there were boatloads (well, wagonloads, really :lol: ) of A-A's who homesteaded the territory.
The problem seemed to be that racism was in full force everywhere they did so--and for lack of community acceptance, blacklisting (no pun intended), inability to find markets for their produce, etc., they packed it up and went to their own kind who had already found a better measure of economic prosperity, in the cities.
Many settled in Omaha, Kansas City, St. Louis, Chicago, and farther afield--a popular destination for the diaspora away from here seemed to be Detroit. There they found acceptance among their people, jobs, housing, and the chance to enjoy life as a regular human being, something ill-afforded them in white bastions.

Would something like that work today?
No.
For starters, our world is so drastically different that homesteading is obsolete--and to grant something similar by government fiat is to take away from someone who already owns that land. The chances of success decline every year, what with the population rising and the availability of land declining.
Whether or not you agree with the premise of Robin Hood, that seems to be the only way of accomplishing such a project.
I reject the notion because it rests, ultimately, on violence. The land has to be taken from someone, first.
Justice says, "the land that the slaves worked in the South should be given to them, at least in part." But justice also demands that the European immigrants be given fair and decent housing in New York and other places...and in the last analysis, not enough people will forgo security and evince the love it would require to embrace justice, which we as a nation should. Democratic government is a two headed monster: it lets the cruel and unjust have an equal say in the affairs of our country, and in justice, we cannot deny them that so long as they exercise that right in peace. *deep sigh*
If a way could be found without force or coercion to settle a black family on a plot of land worked by their forefathers?
Go for it.

SelesFan70
Apr 17th, 2006, 05:26 PM
Out in my neck of the woods (Central Nebraska) we have quite the homesteading tradition. Back in the days of "160 acres", at least around here, there were boatloads (well, wagonloads, really :lol: ) of A-A's who homesteaded the territory.
The problem seemed to be that racism was in full force everywhere they did so--and for lack of community acceptance, blacklisting (no pun intended), inability to find markets for their produce, etc., they packed it up and went to their own kind who had already found a better measure of economic prosperity, in the cities.
Many settled in Omaha, Kansas City, St. Louis, Chicago, and farther afield--a popular destination for the diaspora away from here seemed to be Detroit. There they found acceptance among their people, jobs, housing, and the chance to enjoy life as a regular human being, something ill-afforded them in white bastions.

Would something like that work today?
No.
For starters, our world is so drastically different that homesteading is obsolete--and to grant something similar by government fiat is to take away from someone who already owns that land. The chances of success decline every year, what with the population rising and the availability of land declining.
Whether or not you agree with the premise of Robin Hood, that seems to be the only way of accomplishing such a project.
I reject the notion because it rests, ultimately, on violence. The land has to be taken from someone, first.
Justice says, "the land that the slaves worked in the South should be given to them, at least in part." But justice also demands that the European immigrants be given fair and decent housing in New York and other places...and in the last analysis, not enough people will forgo security and evince the love it would require to embrace justice, which we as a nation should. Democratic government is a two headed monster: it lets the cruel and unjust have an equal say in the affairs of our country, and in justice, we cannot deny them that so long as they exercise that right in peace. *deep sigh*
If a way could be found without force or coercion to settle a black family on a plot of land worked by their forefathers?
Go for it.

Great post, but there are lots of Robin Hoods on this message board. :scared:

John A Roark
Apr 17th, 2006, 05:48 PM
I thought I might inject my two cents' worth in answer to the question "what gives any people a right to a nation-state?"

History should tell you that there is only one way it's ever been done: put your people on the land, however you can accomplish it, and then be strong enough to keep it, however you can.

Is that 'right?' Is that 'fair?' That's life, and as Tara taught me this weekend, life isn't fair. God makes the rains to fall on the just as well as the unjust. If someone steals my seed and plants it, justice demands that the seed not bear fruit, hey? But we all know that's not how botany works.

We Americans have a 'right' to a nation-state because we put our people on the land and forced the Indians aside. That word 'right' suddenly turns tricky, doesn't it?

You UK'ers up in Scotland and Northern Ireland and Wales have a right to your nation-state because you dispossessed the natives, too. The IRA is still fighting you, I believe, and there are still minority nationalist movements in both Glasgow and Cardiff.

Who is going to claim the 'right' to have their nation-state in Jammu and Kashmir--the Hindus or the Moslems? And will it be right, in either case? For everyone should know, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, whoever prevails up there will do awful things to the losers.

Will anyone who asserts their 'right' to a nation-state ever be able to back it up without force?
No.
Will that make it 'right?'
You decide.

RVD
Apr 18th, 2006, 03:08 AM
Perhaps records could be traced and verified as to what families owned land that was tilled by slaves, and it (or other property of said families, if they sold their plantations) should be subject to redistribution (based also on how many slaves they owned, for how long, and how much they profited from slave labor). And re. determining the % of slave (and slaveowner) blood individual blacks carry today, DNA comparisons with the remains of both would make this possible. (Raising the issue of law enforcement covertly using said DNA "fingerprints" to home in on the perpetrators of unsolved crimes, of course).Still wouldn't work since a good number of the descendants are either multi-ethnic [diluting the ethnic pool]; 'property' records have been [purposely] destroyed; many did not maintain records; and those in power will just simply not stand for it. Also, though DNA testing is regarded as the technological model for determining maternity or paternity, it is not 100% accurate.
For instance, A paternity or maternity test can prove with 100% certainty that an individual is not the biological parent of a child, or in this case genealogical descendancy. Currently, there is no test available that can prove with 100% certainty genealogical descendancy, just as there is no test available that can prove with 100% accuracy that a man or woman is the biological parent of a child. I know we've all heard and understood differently. But, the reason is because there are over 30,000 genes in human DNA. DNA testing can prove within 99.9% certainty(depending on the samples). Therefore, you're looking at roughly 1000 of 1 Million resultant inaccuracies. :)

But I suppose, in the same way the current court admissible testing is accomplished [being that 99.9% is considered legally acceptable] so then would this testing. :shrug: But again, that's of those people who could prove, through 'initial' paperwork, their descendancy. :wavey:

Hey, if it gets us closer to the '40 acres and a mule' we were promised, at least it's a step in the right direction, right? :)

RVD
Apr 18th, 2006, 03:53 AM
Out in my neck of the woods (Central Nebraska) we have quite the homesteading tradition. Back in the days of "160 acres", at least around here, there were boatloads (well, wagonloads, really :lol: ) of A-A's who homesteaded the territory.
The problem seemed to be that racism was in full force everywhere they did so--and for lack of community acceptance, blacklisting (no pun intended), inability to find markets for their produce, etc., they packed it up and went to their own kind who had already found a better measure of economic prosperity, in the cities.
Many settled in Omaha, Kansas City, St. Louis, Chicago, and farther afield--a popular destination for the diaspora away from here seemed to be Detroit. There they found acceptance among their people, jobs, housing, and the chance to enjoy life as a regular human being, something ill-afforded them in white bastions.

Would something like that work today?
No.
For starters, our world is so drastically different that homesteading is obsolete--and to grant something similar by government fiat is to take away from someone who already owns that land. The chances of success decline every year, what with the population rising and the availability of land declining.
Whether or not you agree with the premise of Robin Hood, that seems to be the only way of accomplishing such a project.
I reject the notion because it rests, ultimately, on violence. The land has to be taken from someone, first.
Justice says, "the land that the slaves worked in the South should be given to them, at least in part." But justice also demands that the European immigrants be given fair and decent housing in New York and other places...and in the last analysis, not enough people will forgo security and evince the love it would require to embrace justice, which we as a nation should. Democratic government is a two headed monster: it lets the cruel and unjust have an equal say in the affairs of our country, and in justice, we cannot deny them that so long as they exercise that right in peace. *deep sigh*
If a way could be found without force or coercion to settle a black family on a plot of land worked by their forefathers?
Go for it.This is the reason why I would much prefer the 'Constitutional' approach. ;) Heck, I'm sure anyone worth their salt recalls article one of the Constitution designating a black slave as three-fifths a person for tax and political representation purposes? Or the Dred Scott decision in 1857, that stipulated slaves remained slaves no matter where they were taken in the United States. Therefore, the argument that Southerners were the only ones at fault is a fallacy, since the Constitution is a national document. That would mean slavery anywhere within of the U.S. territories, as well as those slaves 'rented' out to other nations would apply. ;)

At any rate, in the case of reparation, why not take the route that re-establishes intrinsic rights for Blacks?

Firstly, a federal apology, then a historical correction would be in order. :worship:

Moreover, my response to a few of the more pressing issues and points, IMO :

1. Major institutions profited from slavery -
Insurance companies profited from insuring slaves as property. Investment houses [made enormous profits from financing slave purchases, investments in Southern land and products, and the transport, and sale of slaves], shipping companies, and banks profited greatly as well.
[b]At the very least the business and corporate community could establish a true school outreach program designed to encourage minority children to start there own businesses. This would also include committees comprised of experts in the varied areas of manufacturing, investing, marketing, banking, and transportation.

2. The legacy of slavery still remains -
A study conducted in 2000, by the National Conference for Community and Justice,
found that blacks are still the major economic and social victims of racial discrimination. They are far more likely to live in undeserved segregated neighborhoods, be refused business and housing loans, be denied promotions in corporations and attend cash starved, failing public schools than whites.
It is time that media put a stop to, what I call, “the marketing of the Black man” as someone to be feared. Enough is enough already. There is far more to fear today than a Black kid hanging out on the street. Or Rap music invading the living room. And for goodness sakes, enough with the racial profiling, and stalking Black department store patrons. If we can afford the home, allow us to decide where we want to live. And if we qualify for the loan, stop taxing us at higher interest rates and point percentages. Lastly, fix the damn schools and roads in minority areas. We pay taxes just like every other American, so we should ALSO reap the benefits if these state and federal road and highway restoration programs.

3. There's a direct cost for slavery's legacy -
Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Andrew Brimmer estimated that discrimination cost blacks $10 billion yearly through the black-white wage gap, denial of capital access, inadequate public services, and reduced social security and other government benefits. This has been called the "black tax."
In my opinion, what Blacks have done for this country economically, is invaluable. Some time ago, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Andrew Brimmer estimated that discrimination costs blacks $10 billion yearly through the black-white wage gap, denial of capital access, inadequate public services, and reduced social security and other government benefits. This has been called the "black tax." This $10 Billion annual tag is extremely conservative, since Blacks outspend white in many major categories even though we are spending less!!:
”More than ever, African-Americans are seeking to get the most for their dollars,” said Ken Smikle, president of Target Market News and publisher of the report. “As they spend more time at home with their families, black consumers are focused on increasing the quality of home life. However, the fact that they are still spending more on average than whites on certain food, apparel and media-related products demonstrates that their lifestyles are not changing radically.”

African-American households spent more per capita than white households in the categories of food, apparel, consumer electronics, media, personal care products, gifts, telephone service and appliances.

This trend is highlighted in the annually published report from Target Market News, a 17-year-old Chicago-based research and information company that specializes in tracking African-American marketing, media and consumer behavior. “The Buying Power of Black America,” which has been published annually for the past 12 years, is one of the most widely quoted sources of information on black consumer spending. The report details how millions of dollars have been spent by black consumers in more than 500 categories. http://www.blackstocks.com/WebX?13@440.N6t9a739bxI.1@.3cd06e01/0So the real questions becomes, “What is the actual VALUE of a people that were not only instrumental is catapulting an infant government and economy above and beyond its competitors, but that also continues to buoy/support the current economy, as well as [have] create new art forms [music, dance, food, crafts], thus inducing burgeoning markets over the past several millennia?

4. Resolution and restitution for the more 'recent' past legal and moral wrongs, and a federal restriction on future such research -
President Clinton caught holy hell from mainly Republicans, but also Democrats, for 'attempting' to set a precedent by suggesting a federal apology for some of these legal and moral wrongs. For example in 1997, Clinton offered his 'personally' apologies, and the U.S. government paid $10 million to Black survivors and family members victimized by the syphilis experiment conducted in the 1930's by the U.S. Public Health Service...even though many today still contend that no such experiment took place.
In 1994, the Florida legislature agreed to make payments to the survivors and relatives of those who lost their lives and property when a white mob destroyed the all-black town of Rosewood in 1923. The carnage was tacitly condoned by public officials and law enforcement officers. The Oklahoma state legislature considered reparations payments to the survivors and their descendants of the destruction of black neighborhoods in Tulsa by white mobs in 1921, but I don't know if that's ever been resolved. More likely not.
I would like to see much more done in the way of funding for drug and alcohol prevention programs; research in the areas of HIV/AIDS, high blood, and cancer research in areas particular to Blacks.

Finally, I personally do not understand the reluctance of White America to 'Do the right thing'. Maybe, if those in power were to re-discover their heart and put as much effort into resolving this issue as they do avoiding them, I see no reason why the massive chasm between the races can't be narrowed, let alone eliminated.

There was no national outcry when the U.S. government made special indemnity payments, provided land and social service benefits to Japanese-Americans interned during World War II; Native-Americans for the theft of lands and mineral rights; and Philippine veterans who fought with the American army during World War II.

I can not fathom what the truth is behind the stark reluctance in dealing with reparations for descendants of slavery–one of the most embarrassing and atrocious accounts in all of American history. But if ever there was a more polarizing issue that festers and continues to eat at the soul of this nation, this, IMHO, would be it? :angel:

Volcana
Apr 18th, 2006, 10:08 PM
This is the reason why I would much prefer the 'Constitutional' approach...Hell of a post. KudosI can not fathom what the truth is behind the stark reluctance in dealing with reparations for descendants of slavery–one of the most embarrassing and atrocious accounts in all of American history. But if ever there was a more polarizing issue that festers and continues to eat at the soul of this nation, this, IMHO, would be it? :angel:The problem is, ultimately, that reparations becomes stark proof that slavery really was that bad, and white racism really DOES remain a significant factor in the USA today.

Two things that a lot of whites really just don't want to deal with. The question of reperations has been around since the end of the civil war.

As a side note, '40 acres' was only a quarter of the 160 acres granted homesteaders.

*JR*
Apr 18th, 2006, 10:45 PM
Still wouldn't work since a good number of the descendants are either multi-ethnic [diluting the ethnic pool]; 'property' records have been [purposely] destroyed; many did not maintain records; and those in power will just simply not stand for it. Also, though DNA testing is regarded as the technological model for determining maternity or paternity, it is not 100% accurate.
I wasn't trying to connect individuals with specific plantations their ancestors worked on, but simply to provide a way to establish eligibility for a "pool" of those eligible to benefit from parcels of land worked by slaves in general. Incidentally, they wouldn't have to become farmers, but would get shares in a sort of "Reparations Land Trust" that they could sell, or draw a gradual payout from.

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 19th, 2006, 12:32 AM
There's no legal right, and the idea of moral rights is nonsense on stilts (Jeremy Bentham).

As for what government action really would be a bloody good policy idea to make up for the history of oppression of blacks in the US, I'm not qualified to say as a white outsider who has not specifically studied the issue, but I doubt that a separate nation would do the trick in this case.

Rtael
Apr 19th, 2006, 03:06 AM
You're all bloody insane. I'm all for the idea of reparations...if you can find anyone still alive who was a slave. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and stop asking for handouts. :)

Volcana
Apr 19th, 2006, 03:21 AM
You're all bloody insane. I'm all for the idea of reparations...if you can find anyone still alive who was a slave. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and stop asking for handouts. :)You obviously missed the point of the thread, which was stated rather clearly in the initial post. Ah, reading is SUCH a lost art.:devil:

That said, inheritance law is actually pretty clear. If someone was unlawfully deprived of something that you would have inherited, you have the right to sue for it's return. Quite a number of things have been returned to descendants of victims of the Holocaust, for example.

However, that has nothing to do with why I started the thread.:wavey:

Volcana
Apr 19th, 2006, 03:31 AM
There's no legal right, and the idea of moral rights is nonsense on stilts (Jeremy Bentham).I don't think the principal of utilitarianism is superior to the idea of moral rights. Evaluating everything in terms of it's overall effect on everyone's happiness is a great idea in theory, but in practice, it becomes 'the ends justifies the means'. The proponents of slavery in the USA (which Bentham opposed) went on at great length about how it was best for Blacks. Utilitarianism was a great intellectual idea, that was at odds with the human condition. Rather like communism, actually. Great in theory, fails in practice (the Chinese having abandoned pure communism, and North Korea closes on being a failed state).

kiwifan
Apr 26th, 2006, 05:19 AM
Now of course everyone, please remember I'm just kidding about all this...reparations is just a fun mental exercise...

...ain't gonna happen and I don't lose a second of sleep thinking about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM34oyPAFOc&search=chappelle%20reparations

John A Roark
Apr 28th, 2006, 04:08 AM
The thread about the attack on the hispanic kid with the metal pipe, etc., elicited a comment or two about blacks not needing to apologize about being 'pro-black,' or for supporting a person or a cause just because they're black.

Dana, I believe mentioned this, and she's right--and it spills over to the reparations idea, I have come to think.

John Dominic Crossan talks about 'retributive justice' versus 'distributive justice.' The idea here is that everyone gets the same thing, or as close to it as is possible for a community devoted to, first and foremost, compassion.
The distribution of justice should overcome all barriers, and that includes time.

N.B: I said 'should.'

It only works if everyone is committed to the same ideal, but let's put that improbability aside for a second.
When Dana mentioned that blacks sometimes support causes and people based solely on their color...well, that's right. After all, blacks in this country were shit on for so many years based solely on their color, and distributive justice always seeks balance.
Time shouldn't get in the way, and just because it was so many years ago, and so much water has gone under the bridge? No excuse for not finding a way to do justice.
If the blacks of America want to forgive, I say fantastic--that's what we all should do. If they do not, that is perfectly understandable, and should not stand in the way, even for a moment, of seeking that justice. Our justice cannot depend on a reward, like forgiveness or gratitude. Justice should be done, period.

I don't see too many other ways to give back a measure of justice to the black component of our nation except reparations of some kind. Mind you, Derrick and I have thrashed this out (see above) as to it's feasability, but surely there must be a solution?

Justice demands it.

kiwifan
Apr 28th, 2006, 04:19 AM
Everyone pays more attention to a news story (either stronger scrutiny of the details or the silly practice of picking sides and rooting accordingly) when their own self interest is affected.

If blacks are getting dragged behind pickup trucks I want to know when, where, who did it and what happened them.

When the same thing happens to a gay guy, I think "that's horrible" and pay attention while its still in the headlines but once its gone, I won't google it in 2007.

On the other hand if the gay guy was a rugby player for the National Champion Cal Bears - (Flight 93's Bingham) - I then can't read enough about the tragedy. While I assume there were blacks on the flight as well, I'm not even aware of most of the other passengers (I know one's name was Beamer, that's about it). :shrug:

Those who are honest with themselves would admit this is a fairly universal trait.

You care more about things that you relate to intimately - race is only 1 of a 1000 factors (for example I relate to College Lacrosse players - 5 of my best friends were - waaaay more than single mom strippers in NC).

SelesFan70
Apr 28th, 2006, 05:49 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM34oyPAFOc&search=chappelle%20reparations

:spit: