Objective

[The_Horses_Boy]

I'm trying to see this as fairly objective. When I had these discussions I had to play devil's advocate or there would be no discussion - no way for me to see the other point of view with some sense and decency left.

The discussion was about race and, more specifically, racial reparations. I was talking to people who beleived that the government does give some advantages to minorities (namely African Americans), but that they are small and not enough. They argued that the government has to give more to make up for what the (paraphrase) "white man did." (<--and for what the government has done) I said that that isn't right. This creates racial barriers, it doesn't break them down. Not only that, but it's not fair to take money from some people and give to others based on race because of something that neither they nor their ancestors did wrong - but someone of their race.

They said that there is racism against blacks everywhere you go. I said yes there is, but it isn't so strong. They pointed out that, statistically, more blacks are unemployed in America and that is racism. I said that, statistically, there are more black athletes and I asked if that was racism. They said no - it's punishment to the white man, who bred blacks for physical attributes. I asked that if that's the case, perhaps it's the "bred intellectual attributes" that may explain why whites do better in schools. They cussed at me and called me a terrible racist, when I was only playing devil's advocate.


Now of course I don't beleive that whites are born with an inherent intellectual advantage. I don't beleive that blacks are born with a physical advantage. I don't beleive that it's racism that makes blacks more dominant in the sports arena, or racism that makes whites more dominant in the workforce or (I don't know if it's the case anymore) in the school.

But I was wondering what people think of this discussion I had. Do blacks deserve reparations for what happened to their ancestors, even it's paid by people who didn't do it and whose ancestors didn't? Can you say that there is anti-black racism in the workforce, but not say that there is anti-white racism in basketball? Any other views?

 

[Rochir]

But I was wondering what people think of this discussion I had. Do blacks deserve reparations for what happened to their ancestors, even it's paid by people who didn't do it and whose ancestors didn't? Can you say that there is anti-black racism in the workforce, but not say that there is anti-white racism in basketball? Any other views?

It's a good and needed question. The same would apply in other cases, i.e. the "debt" the US government and white men have towards American Indians, or the "debt" the German people has towards the Jews. Should this "debt" never be paid? I don't think so!

Maybe there should be some understanding that after 10 generations any debt of one people towards anotehr be call null and void!

 

[Yusuf Evans]

I'm trying to see this as fairly objective. When I had these discussions I had to play devil's advocate or there would be no discussion - no way for me to see the other point of view with some sense and decency left.

The discussion was about race and, more specifically, racial reparations. I was talking to people who beleived that the government does give some advantages to minorities (namely African Americans), but that they are small and not enough. They argued that the government has to give more to make up for what the (paraphrase) "white man did." (<--and for what the government has done) I said that that isn't right. This creates racial barriers, it doesn't break them down. Not only that, but it's not fair to take money from some people and give to others based on race because of something that neither they nor their ancestors did wrong - but someone of their race.

They said that there is racism against blacks everywhere you go. I said yes there is, but it isn't so strong. They pointed out that, statistically, more blacks are unemployed in America and that is racism. I said that, statistically, there are more black athletes and I asked if that was racism. They said no - it's punishment to the white man, who bred blacks for physical attributes. I asked that if that's the case, perhaps it's the "bred intellectual attributes" that may explain why whites do better in schools. They cussed at me and called me a terrible racist, when I was only playing devil's advocate.


Now of course I don't beleive that whites are born with an inherent intellectual advantage. I don't beleive that blacks are born with a physical advantage. I don't beleive that it's racism that makes blacks more dominant in the sports arena, or racism that makes whites more dominant in the workforce or (I don't know if it's the case anymore) in the school.

But I was wondering what people think of this discussion I had. Do blacks deserve reparations for what happened to their ancestors, even it's paid by people who didn't do it and whose ancestors didn't? Can you say that there is anti-black racism in the workforce, but not say that there is anti-white racism in basketball? Any other views?

Yes, it's tragic that we had slavery in this country, but what nation did not have slavery? How about the fact that one of the "great" Presidents wanted to committ genocide against Native Americans? They have been stomped and destroyed more than blacks have, and have never got nearly enough "debt" paid back to them as blacks. Why is that? Maybe it's because they are Native Americans and people like to pass them off. I don't think Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition is in a rush to represent them. So the fact that we owe any race of people anything today is farce. Granted, racism still exists but it's always going to exist. Need an example: look at the Middle East.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Also, forgot to put this in original post, if anyone finds any flaws in what I've said or anything wrong that I've said please say so.


And Rochir, it's a very difficult thing to solve. From what you've said I think I understand that you think reparations should be made but after 10 generations should be null and void. Well, here are a few ideas about reparations:

American whites v. American blacks: Blacks have been held as slaves in America, a terrible thing. But when less than a quarter of a percent of Americans (at time of the American Civil War) held slaves, how can you justify reparations being made by the entire race for the actions of a few? And how can you do this when there were free blacks that owned black slaves?

Germans v. Jews: Adolf Hitler controlled a German Empire with over 100,000,000 Germans, which killed approximately six million Jews. Now it's known that this was done rather secretively (most Germans didn't know about the Holocaust until after the war), and we know that far less Germans killed Jews than Jews did die, so we can rather accurately estimate that less than 500,000 of over 100,000,000 Germans kills Jews. How can you justify reparations by the German race to the Jewish race for the actions of a few? Even if a German's ancestor was one of the few, what did that individual gain or do wrong?



Personally, I think that reparations should be made - but you can't make reparations for the dead. If an individual wasn't a part of something than I don't think that you can make him or her pay reparations.

Thoughts?

 

[hernyaccent]

There are already racial barriers in this county. It's impossible for current events to establish something that is deep rooted in our history. I don't believe in reparations. What I would love to see is acknowledgement of the minority contribution to this country beyond the negative of slavery. That's what I want to see.

Even being black I use to think like the OP ( and I am african american-if you dont already know that) until I started experiencing racism head on. It didn't impact my life until I was out on my own trying to get job positions and over heard an employer say he would have never called me in if he knew I was black. Also, when I called for an apartment and they asked my race and when I said African -American the women said perhaps I should look some place else( yes I reported this) . As much as we like to pretend it's not there it really is.

As for blacks being so called " atheletically superior" you have to realize this goes a long way back. In the age of slavery the largest and strongest blacks were " breed" so they would produce stronger slaves. That notion carried over to sports. Is it true--NO.

 

[hernyaccent]

Also, forgot to put this in original post, if anyone finds any flaws in what I've said or anything wrong that I've said please say so.


And Rochir, it's a very difficult thing to solve. From what you've said I think I understand that you think reparations should be made but after 10 generations should be null and void. Well, here are a few ideas about reparations:

American whites v. American blacks: Blacks have been held as slaves in America, a terrible thing. But when less than a quarter of a percent of Americans (at time of the American Civil War) held slaves, how can you justify reparations being made by the entire race for the actions of a few? And how can you do this when there were free blacks that owned black slaves?

Germans v. Jews: Adolf Hitler controlled a German Empire with over 100,000,000 Germans, which killed approximately six million Jews. Now it's known that this was done rather secretively (most Germans didn't know about the Holocaust until after the war), and we know that far less Germans killed Jews than Jews did die, so we can rather accurately estimate that less than 500,000 of over 100,000,000 Germans kills Jews. How can you justify reparations by the German race to the Jewish race for the actions of a few? Even if a German's ancestor was one of the few, what did that individual gain or do wrong?



Personally, I think that reparations should be made - but you can't make reparations for the dead. If an individual wasn't a part of something than I don't think that you can make him or her pay reparations.

Thoughts?

Reparations ( as I started I don't agree with) aren't asked to come out of the pocket of all white americans. It's being asked to come from the government. We can't deny that the american government didn't benefit from slavery.

The German GOVERNMENT benefited from the massive killing of Jews. Especially on the level of weaponary.


Non- finacial reparations can be made to the dead.

 

[sister_maynard]

Individuals cannot be held responsible for the things that people of their race did in the past. If we to go by a strict basis of whose ancestors harmed whose, some blacks would have to pay others. Some Africans sold their prisoners of war and raided other tribes so they could sell those people to the slave traders and make a profit. Trying to sort out racial reparations would only fan the flames of racism. I agree that there are many genuine problems with racism and discrimination, but making people pay for the crimes of their ancestors isn't the way to solve those problems.

 

[SimplyMe]

Reparations ( as I started I don't agree with) aren't asked to come out of the pocket of all white americans. It's being asked to come from the government. We can't deny that the american government didn't benefit from slavery.

The German GOVERNMENT benefited from the massive killing of Jews. Especially on the level of weaponary.


Non- finacial reparations can be made to the dead.

If we are going to talk of the government paying, do we not include the cost the Federal goverment paid during the Civil War that freed the slaves? How can we ever put a monetary amount on what the government gained verses what the government has spent on slavery/blacks?

Second, if we are going to make complete reparation, does this not require giving most of the country back to the Native Americans?

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

The point about the government benefitting, I think, is the same. If the government is, for example, to pay reparations to blacks for slavery then the government would tax whites & blacks to pay blacks, right?


And as far as Indian reparations go, that is a very tricky one. If I'm not mistaken, most Native American tribes thought that the land belonged to everyone and that no one could own it. Second point about the matter would be that most of the tribes who lost their land were been eradicated.

 

[SimplyMe]

The point about the government benefitting, I think, is the same. If the government is, for example, to pay reparations to blacks for slavery then the government would tax whites & blacks to pay blacks, right?


And as far as Indian reparations go, that is a very tricky one. If I'm not mistaken, most Native American tribes thought that the land belonged to everyone and that no one could own it. Second point about the matter would be that most of the tribes who lost their land were been eradicated.

I think far less tribes have been eradicated than you think. For example, in Oklahoma you have tribal governments (or branches of the governments) for: Shawnee, Quassarte, Apache, Caddo, Cherokee, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Potawatomi, Comanche, Delaware, Iowa, Kaw, Kialegee, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Miami, Modoc, Muscogee (Creek), Osage, Otoe, Ottawa, Pawnee, Peoria, Ponca, Quapaw, Sac & Fox, Seminole, Seneca-Cayuga, Thlopthlocco, Tonkawa, Wichita, Waco, Tawakoni, Keechi, and Wyandotte. Also, while some tribes did not have the same concept of indiviual ownership of land, most tribes were protective of the land that their tribe had claimed.

 

[hernyaccent]

If we are going to talk of the government paying, do we not include the cost the Federal goverment paid during the Civil War that freed the slaves? How can we ever put a monetary amount on what the government gained verses what the government has spent on slavery/blacks?

Second, if we are going to make complete reparation, does this not require giving most of the country back to the Native Americans?

Re-read my post. I don't agree with reparations on a finacial level. No amount of money in my pocket will ever ease the pain my ancestors felt or the other minorities in America.

What I would love to see is acknowledgement of minority groups of the past outside of the negative. I hear the government talk about slavery, the civil rights movement, the native americans being killed, the mexicans being enslaved and the asians being detained. Minority history in America isn't limited to our pain. Admitting that but not forgeting the negative in my opinion is what reparations would be.

As for what you stated-- the government didn't free the slaves for the benefit of the slaves. They freed them for their own personal benefits. Whites were migrating and where unable to find jobs.

 

[hernyaccent]

The point about the government benefitting, I think, is the same. If the government is, for example, to pay reparations to blacks for slavery then the government would tax whites & blacks to pay blacks, right?

Reparations in the form of money isn't practical.

 

[SimplyMe]

Re-read my post. I don't agree with reparations on a finacial level. No amount of money in my pocket will ever ease the pain my ancestors felt or the other minorities in America.

What I would love to see is acknowledgement of minority groups of the past outside of the negative. I hear the government talk about slavery, the civil rights movement, the native americans being killed, the mexicans being enslaved and the asians being detained. Minority history in America isn't limited to our pain. Admitting that but not forgeting the negative in my opinion is what reparations would be.

As for what you stated-- the government didn't free the slaves for the benefit of the slaves. They freed them for their own personal benefits. Whites were migrating and where unable to find jobs.

I actually agree with most of what you say. The exception is the cause for the civil war. There were numerous causes, not any single cause; however, a primary reason for the succession was the election of Abraham Lincoln. Ultimately, the largest argument for the civil war was what rights the states had, yet one of the factors Lincoln kept playing to during the war to help generate support was the idea of freeing the slaves. A prime example was the Emancapation Proclamation, it was a worthless proclamation since it only freed slaves in the states that were rebelling (and thus Lincoln did not control) yet it was aimed as a propoganda tool and it did help shift public opinion in favor of the war.

 

[hernyaccent]

I actually agree with most of what you say. The exception is the cause for the civil war. There were numerous causes, not any single cause; however, a primary reason for the succession was the election of Abraham Lincoln. Ultimately, the largest argument for the civil war was what rights the states had, yet one of the factors Lincoln kept playing to during the war to help generate support was the idea of freeing the slaves. A prime example was the Emancapation Proclamation, it was a worthless proclamation since it only freed slaves in the states that were rebelling (and thus Lincoln did not control) yet it was aimed as a propoganda tool and it did help shift public opinion in favor of the war.

My point about the civil war was only one. There were in fact many motives. The most important one in the eyes of the government weren't the rights of african-americans. So IMO whatever motive the government had for freeing slaves was for their own benefit.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

"I think far less tribes have been eradicated than you think. For example, in Oklahoma you have tribal governments (or branches of the governments) for: Shawnee, Quassarte, Apache, Caddo, Cherokee, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Potawatomi, Comanche, Delaware, Iowa, Kaw, Kialegee, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Miami, Modoc, Muscogee (Creek), Osage, Otoe, Ottawa, Pawnee, Peoria, Ponca, Quapaw, Sac & Fox, Seminole, Seneca-Cayuga, Thlopthlocco, Tonkawa, Wichita, Waco, Tawakoni, Keechi, and Wyandotte. Also, while some tribes did not have the same concept of indiviual ownership of land, most tribes were protective of the land that their tribe had claimed."


O I know that there were alot. But can you name the ones that no longer exist? No because, to be perfectly honest, not many people care about them. It should be recorded and cared about, but I doubt that we even have names and documentation for many. But of course, there are many left. I know that, just wanted to point out about ones that were destroyed. Might also want to point out that some Indian tribes contested over certain land as well. Some would, I think, have stolen from one another, but that does not justify the American government stealing from them.


"As for what you stated-- the government didn't free the slaves for the benefit of the slaves. They freed them for their own personal benefits. Whites were migrating and where unable to find jobs. "

I've studied the Civil War pretty extensively and, I can assure you that if this is a reason why (I haven't heard it before) it's a minor one outside of the picture. The South rebelled because of a) they didn't like the candidate and thought him a threat to their way of life, b) misrepresentation and c) they had every right to. Slavery would be a PERFECTLY good explanation for why the South rebelled, but why then would the emancipation proclamation have been two years after succession?

If you want a civil war discussion, let's start a new one thread.


"Reparations in the form of money isn't practical."

Quite right, but many beleive otherwise.




"I actually agree with most of what you say. The exception is the cause for the civil war. There were numerous causes, not any single cause; however, a primary reason for the succession was the election of Abraham Lincoln. Ultimately, the largest argument for the civil war was what rights the states had, yet one of the factors Lincoln kept playing to during the war to help generate support was the idea of freeing the slaves. A prime example was the Emancapation Proclamation, it was a worthless proclamation since it only freed slaves in the states that were rebelling (and thus Lincoln did not control) yet it was aimed as a propoganda tool and it did help shift public opinion in favor of the war."

Quite right. In fact, at his election (I think it was then, but I know that irregardless) he swore not to deal with the issue of slavery. However, in the Emancipation Proclamation, he found reason to free the slaves - only in "rebelling states". In fact Lincoln thought that slavery was wrong and his plan to fix it was, and I quote 'deportation.' Could anyone imagine what would have happened had it not been for John Wilkes Booth? (don't get me wrong - Lincoln's on my list of top 5 presidents)




"My point about the civil war was only one. There were in fact many motives. The most important one in the eyes of the government weren't the rights of african-americans. So IMO whatever motive the government had for freeing slaves was for their own benefit."

Quite right. I think the biggest reason was to give their cause a purpose. As it was they were fighting states who had the right to succeed BECAUSE the states succeeded. The North was as bad as the bad guy could get in that time and needed a legitimizing reason to fight the war it was fighting.

I've talked all of this before, but it's good to talk about it with more intelligent people.



EDIT: and I'm glad that this board is heavilly moderated. I've gotten alarms/warnings, and I think that it's a good thing.

 

[hernyaccent]

"


I've studied the Civil War pretty extensively and, I can assure you that if this is a reason why (I haven't heard it before) it's a minor one outside of the picture. The South rebelled because of a) they didn't like the candidate and thought him a threat to their way of life, b) misrepresentation and c) they had every right to. Slavery would be a PERFECTLY good explanation for why the South rebelled, but why then would the emancipation proclamation have been two years after succession?

If you want a civil war discussion, let's start a new one thread.

I don't deny their being other reasons for the south to rebell. However, we are speaking of blacks and slavery. In my years of education that is what I have learned is ONE of the issues that faced the North. I believe it took two years for the proclamation because it's politics and money.

"Reparations in the form of money isn't practical."

Quite right, but many beleive otherwise.

Most blacks I have encountered who want to receive finacial reparations have gotten this idea due to pop culture and media.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

I'm trying to see this as fairly objective. When I had these discussions I had to play devil's advocate or there would be no discussion - no way for me to see the other point of view with some sense and decency left.

The discussion was about race and, more specifically, racial reparations. I was talking to people who beleived that the government does give some advantages to minorities (namely African Americans), but that they are small and not enough. They argued that the government has to give more to make up for what the (paraphrase) "white man did." (<--and for what the government has done) I said that that isn't right. This creates racial barriers, it doesn't break them down. Not only that, but it's not fair to take money from some people and give to others based on race because of something that neither they nor their ancestors did wrong - but someone of their race.

They said that there is racism against blacks everywhere you go. I said yes there is, but it isn't so strong. They pointed out that, statistically, more blacks are unemployed in America and that is racism. I said that, statistically, there are more black athletes and I asked if that was racism. They said no - it's punishment to the white man, who bred blacks for physical attributes. I asked that if that's the case, perhaps it's the "bred intellectual attributes" that may explain why whites do better in schools. They cussed at me and called me a terrible racist, when I was only playing devil's advocate.


Now of course I don't beleive that whites are born with an inherent intellectual advantage. I don't beleive that blacks are born with a physical advantage. I don't beleive that it's racism that makes blacks more dominant in the sports arena, or racism that makes whites more dominant in the workforce or (I don't know if it's the case anymore) in the school.

But I was wondering what people think of this discussion I had. Do blacks deserve reparations for what happened to their ancestors, even it's paid by people who didn't do it and whose ancestors didn't? Can you say that there is anti-black racism in the workforce, but not say that there is anti-white racism in basketball? Any other views?

Reparations? Ummm, no, that is not something that I agree with. I really don't think the issue in the workforce has anything to do with race, either, but income... The workforce isn't against black people, it's against poor people.

For instance, where I live, Detroit, it works something like this. The actual city of Detroit really doesn't have any jobs. Quite frankly, you can't find work. The city is mostly black, but that isn't why you can't find work. You can't find work, because we have no public transit for people to get out to the 'burbs, where there are jobs. So... you get generation after generation of people not working, and it is simply a cycle. It's not because they are black (although, I honestly believe we don't have public transit, because of a few racist cities not wanting to ship in the black people) but because they are poor and do not have the same abilities as everyone else.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Didn't Native Americans get something? Isn't that why they get their own land, and basically follow their own rules? Granted, not really anything considering this is all their land, but still.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

"I don't deny their being other reasons for the south to rebell. However, we are speaking of blacks and slavery. In my years of education that is what I have learned is ONE of the issues that faced the North. I believe it took two years for the proclamation because it's politics and money."

Well, we all have the right to our own opinions. My opinion is otherwise, because the South rebelled when slavery was not in danger. Lincoln swore that he wouldn't touch the issue of slavery, but the South still rebelled. It took two years for the North to come up against slavery? Well actually the North still had it's own slaves at the end of the war. And the Emancipation only declared free the slaves where Lincoln had no control.


"Most blacks I have encountered who want to receive finacial reparations have gotten this idea due to pop culture and media."

I actually have found that there are more whites who think this than blacks!

 

[SimplyMe]

Didn't Native Americans get something? Isn't that why they get their own land, and basically follow their own rules? Granted, not really anything considering this is all their land, but still.

It is hard to say that Native Americans really got anything other than broken promises. Now, there are some Indians that have reservations, but it is some of the worst land in the United States (for example, the desert area of Northeastern Arizona and Northwestern New Mexico).

The Cherokee Tribe of Oklahoma is a good example. They were forced from their homes in the South (actually because Whites wanted their houses and farms, the Cherokee were prosperous) and forced to march to lands in Oklahoma, it is now known as the "Trail of Tears." As an interesting side note, among the songs sung by the Cherokees on the Trail of Tears was "Amazing Grace." Cherokee lyrics were written for the song and it is today a sort of anthem of the Cherokee people.

Eventually, as settlers started moving into Oklahoma and especially after oil was found, the US set up the Dawes Commission to "negotiate" with the various tribes, took away all land from the tribes but gave parcels of land to members of the tribes. This freed up land for the White settlers, though many of the tribal members did not sign up for fear of a government persecution and the government also disqualified many tribal members they did not feel were qualified.

As it turns out, the tribes that lived in Oklahoma ended up better off than many, particularly the Five Civilized Tribes, as they still received some of the profits from the oil found under land that had previously belonged to their tribes.

While you can claim that the government did give something to the tribes they stole land from, in many ways it would be the equivalent of the government "buying" you house for $25.