NYT: What Reparations for Slavery Might Look Like in 2019

[NoCalMike]

1 minute ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

They do mention some canidates have supported it 

 

 

 

Although I agree, none of them are going make it a big issue in the debates or a major part of their platform. 

 

Ok, well for the sake of this thread, I think just talking about this subject outside of election implications might be useful. 

[Going Commando]

7 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

What "further action" are you referring to?  They've been waiting 150+ years for further action. 

 

I don't think cutting a check to black descendants of slaves for a one-time pay off a 150 year old debt would be the start of economic empowerment for them.  But I do think it would be the end of white guilt and white sympathy for black people and the issues of white supremacy that they face.

[TheGoodBits]

16 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

400 years of slavery and institutional racism has also been pretty divisive. Only difference is white people haven’t had to deal with black people getting things like rights and wealth most of that time. 

 

Quoting myself to expand on this... there have been 4 major occurrences in the history of our country where black people saw their status advanced, and there was hell to pay with white backlash each time. 

 

Abolition movement led to the goddamn Civil War.

 

Reconstruction led to white supremacy and a decades long effort to effectively reinstate antebellum status of black people.

 

Civil Rights Era led to the two party structure of our country being entirely flipped on it's head so it was aligned by *race* rather than economics. 

 

And Obama's presidency led to the end-state of the intellectual and moral decline of an entire party, and direct led to the election of a bigoted authoritarian. 

 

 

____

 

My point here isn't to say that we should not pursue reparations because of white backlash, moreso to say "who gives a **** how angry white people get about it." 

 

 

[DCSaints_fan]

3 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I don't think cutting a check to black descendants of slaves for a one-time pay off a 150 year old debt would be the start of economic empowerment for them.  But I do think it would be the end of white guilt and white sympathy for black people and the issues of white supremacy that they face.

 

I think in some cases it would.   True many might spend the money unwisely, but i think it would help alot of people.  

 

Alternatively, funds could be used for scholarships, particularly for younger recipients.   Or maybe something like land/housing.  

 

If it did come down to straight monetary payments,  I wouldn't really want a single check, but a series of payments.  So that $80k might be $8k/year over 10 years.

9 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Even if we could solve the logistical issue of accurately identifying the descendents of slaves and could come up with 2.7 trillion to 500 billion, 80k to 16k wouldn't come close to adequate reparation for slavery (anyone willing to be sold into slavery so that your children could collect 80k max?). 

 

A more apt comparison, would you if you were forced into slavery, would you rather your descedents got $80k or nothing. 

 

9 minutes ago, bearrock said:

And it doesn't even begin to address the wrongs black Americans suffered after emancipation.  Not to mention that reparation will be used as an excuse against actually trying to address racial injustice in today's society.  It's a bad and inadequate solution to a hugely complex problem.

 

I think it partially addresses those issues.   When you started to see the rise of the black middle class in the 40s/50s, then were frequently beaten down with issues line redlining.   I would add that as another qualifier. 

[Going Commando]

3 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

I think in some cases it would.   True many might spend the money unwisely, but i think it would help alot of people.  

 

Alternatively, funds could be used for scholarships, particularly for younger recipients.   Or maybe something like land/housing.   

  

If it did come down to straight monetary payments,  I wouldn't really want a single check, but a series of payments.  So that $80k might be $8k/year over 10 years. 

 

No matter what, handing out cash payments worth thousands of dollars to millions of people would be a **** show with vast unforseen economic ripples.  It would cause a feeding frenzy of exploitation and graft, not to mention inflation in many black communities that are already very economically vulnerable.  Reparations intended to economically better the descendants of slaves would have to come in the form of something of value that can't be easily liquidated or exchanged.  Probably a set of benefits handled by an institution like a GI Bill would be my guess.

[DCSaints_fan]

5 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

No matter what, handing out cash payments worth thousands of dollars to millions of people would be a **** show with vast unforseen economic ripples.  It would cause a feeding frenzy of exploitation and graft, not to mention inflation in many black communities that are already very economically vulnerable.  Reparations intended to economically better the descendants of slaves would have to come in the form of something of value that can't be easily liquidated or exchanged.  Probably a set of benefits handled by an institution like a GI Bill would be my guess.

 

This did not happen with the Japanese reparations.   I don't think it will happen with any slavery reparations 

 

I agree a straight monetary payment would not be the best use of funds.  But I wouldn't rule it out,  especially older recipients.   For younger recipients you could have things like scholarships, home buying assistance, and business startup funds. 

[Going Commando]

3 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

This did not happen with the Japanese reparations.   I don't think it will happen with any slavery reparations 

 

That was a much smaller and more homogeneous group of claimants though, and a much smaller amount of cash.  It was only paid to survivors of internment.  There are tens of millions of descendants of slaves, of all ages.  And the presumed payout would be in the billions of dollars, not a couple hundred thousand.  It would have a vastly bigger economic impact, good or bad.

[Yohan]

54 minutes ago, nonniey said:

So lets say my wife gets $80,000 and daughter get $80,000 this year but then we have another child next year. That child would not get anything? Or child born on 31 December would get the money but one born on 1 January would be **** of of luck?

This was from the article:

 

Quote

Who would be paid?

Nearly 47 million Americans identified themselves as black or African-American in the latest census. A vast majority are descended from slaves, but others are more recent migrants. So who would qualify for a payment?

William A. Darity Jr., an economist at Duke University and a leading scholar on reparations, suggests two qualifying conditions: having at least one ancestor who was enslaved in the United States, and having identified oneself as African-American on a legal document for at least a decade before the approval of any reparations. The 10-year rule, he said, would help screen out anyone trying to cash in on a windfall.

According to these criteria, Oprah Winfrey, who has traced her DNA to slaves captured in West Africa in the early 19th century, would qualify. Former President Barack Obama, the son of a white American mother and a Kenyan father, would not. Mr. Darity estimates that roughly 30 million Americans would be eligible.

 

[bearrock]

46 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

A more apt comparison, would you if you were forced into slavery, would you rather your descedents got $80k or nothing. 

 

I think it partially addresses those issues.   When you started to see the rise of the black middle class in the 40s/50s, then were frequently beaten down with issues line redlining.   I would add that as another qualifier. 

 

If somebody gave me a choice between nothing and inadequate reparation, then yes, I would take the inadequate reparation.  But that's a false choice.  I think a better solution is to address the outsized effect socioeconomic background has on a person's education and opportunities in life.  Ensuring a fair and equal opportunity to young people, means and opportunity to those toiling in poverty, and healthcare and social safety net to those who suffered under the injustice of racial inequities for decades, those would be the proper starting points.  Break the chain and cycle of systematic racism on the youth first.  That's issue number one.

[nonniey]

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

There is never going to be a good time to work on reparations.  I can't even fathom how difficult it would be to authenticate the genealogies of what could potentially be tens of millions of claimants.  The longer we put off work on reparations, the more remote the ancestry will become, and the harder the task becomes.  At a certain point, it would mean the debt will never be repaid.

OK the way I see it there absolutely should never be reparations for decedents of slaves.  The victims are dead and so are the perpetrators.  Additionally the country paid the debt in blood. My vote would be no (an example of voting against self interest).

1 hour ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

This did not happen with the Japanese reparations.   ......

Japanese reparations were paid to the victims not the decedents of the victims.

[DCSaints_fan]

 

4 minutes ago, nonniey said:

 OK the way I see it there absolutely should never be reparations for decedents of slaves.  The victims are dead and so are the perpetrators.  Additionally the country paid for slavery in blood. My vote would be no (an example of voting against self interest).

 

Its not so much slavery, so much as the Jim Crow policies that continued well into the late 20th century.  

 

For example, redlining. The FHA was complicit in that travesty.  I would start there.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/28/redlining-was-banned-50-years-ago-its-still-hurting-minorities-today/?utm_term=.8e19a9e89f08

[nonniey]

50 minutes ago, Yohan said:

This was from the article:

 

 

So multi-racial descendants who identify as multi-racial would be excluded? Seems to me to be another attempt at invigorating identity politics.  

[Kosher Ham]

So unlikely. The problem is that those people had no rights as they were considered property.  

 

Sad, but true. 

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

From a purely pragmatic view, it would be a massive short-term windfall for the economy.  So that’s nice.

 

As a social justice experiment, it’s a nice gesture but would likely be counterproductive to our sense of national equity.  Additionally, it wouldn’t solve any of the long-standing institutional obstacles that minorities face.  @bearrock nailed it.

 

Put me down for a soft no.

 

#paidinblood?

[killerbee99]

Come on... Totally disappointed.... No Dave Chappelle mention 

 

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/vih2zg/chappelle-s-show-reparations-2003-follow-up

 

Can't insert the stupid video

[Going Commando]

50 minutes ago, nonniey said:

OK the way I see it there absolutely should never be reparations for decedents of slaves.  The victims are dead and so are the perpetrators.  Additionally the country paid the debt in blood. My vote would be no (an example of voting against self interest). 

 

From what i understand, reparations would be to cover the promise of 40 acres and a mule that was made post-war.  It's a post-war promise that was reneged on by the Johnson administration, so the blood spilled in the War isn't payment to address that promise.

[Destino]

Land was the original promise so land should be part of the deal.  First for the funding of this project, begin by selling off central park and other urban park spaces.  They have the greatest land value of publicly owned land that is currently unoccupied.  As urban voters are, no doubt, the ones who most strongly support reparations, I'm sure they won't object. 

 

I would also be in favor of using all or some of the revenue generated by those awful express toll lanes, made to exclude the poor. This is really the only way of redeeming these horrible things. 

 

Now that we've found some money, it's time to start handing out land.  40 acres isn't going to happen with the current population size, but that doesn't mean there isn't land available.  Much of middle America is empty space.  Use the money raised via the previously mentioned plan, to purchase land in sparsely populated sections of the US where the dollar goes the furthest.  Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, New Mexico, Idaho, and Nebraska have the lowest population densities.  Start buying that land, I'm sure current residents will appreciate the bump in land value and small towns definitely need an influx of new people and economic activity.

 

You're welcome America.

 

[tshile]

Why not just split up land the federal government owns. Doesn’t it own a lot between parks and reserved areas?

 

 

[Kosher Ham]

Native Americans are still figuring out how to deal with this. 

[Going Commando]

Literally paying 40 acres and a mule or the equivalent dollar amount in today's money to the estates of every freed slave from 1865 doesn't seem to be the realistic goal of the push for reparations.  I'd have to imagine that tracking down all of those estates would be a practical impossibility.  Then you have to negotiate a satisfactory recompense, which others have rightly stated is a minefield where no one will end up happy.  Plus I'd imagine this whole thing would be extremely complicated from a legal perspective.  @nonniey is right that that kind of process would be incredibly divisive.

 

Instead the goal seems to be to economically uplift the descendants of slaves, which seems worthy to me.  I could get behind a GI Bill-esque set of benefits for people who can authenticate their genealogies, but I don't exactly know how they'd do that.  I'm not ruling out that it could be done, but I know from first hand experience that old census data is tough to navigate.  I do think reparations could have a lot of negative unintended consequences though, and I think just straight up cash payments to the descendants of slaves is a bad idea that would probably do more harm for black people than good in the long run.  For one thing, it would almost certainly galvanize resentment of blacks and white supremacist sentiment among poor and middle class whites and drive support for Republicans.

[Springfield]

Reading this on my cell phone at the gym but I’m against it.  Maybe I could explain my position later, but it’s a no for me dawg.

[DCSaints_fan]

3 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Instead the goal seems to be to economically uplift the descendants of slaves, which seems worthy to me.  I could get behind a GI Bill-esque set of benefits for people who can authenticate their genealogies, but I don't exactly know how they'd do that.  I'm not ruling out that it could be done, but I know from first hand experience that old census data is tough to navigate.  I do think reparations could have a lot of negative unintended consequences though, and I think just straight up cash payments to the descendants of slaves is a bad idea that would probably do more harm for black people than good in the long run.  For one thing, it would almost certainly galvanize resentment of blacks and white supremacist sentiment among poor and middle class whites and drive support for Republicans.

 

Census records in the US are pretty good.   I don't think there is a big difference for white or black at least after 1865.   States wanted to count as many people as possible so they got the most representation in Congress.

 

You could have the bar as being able to trace any black ancestor prior to about 1880 or so.  Because (correct me if I"m wrong here) free blacks did not immigrate to the US, until relatively recently.   And even if I am wrong on that point, its not just slavery we're talking about here, but being subject to ongoing discrimination.

 

There is also DNA testing 

 

[Warhead36]

Cutting black people a check isn't addressing the real problem of institutional racism. In fact if anything it'll only make matters worse as rural whites will look at it as a handout and ask: where's my piece of the pie?

[Renegade7]

4 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

From what i understand, reparations would be to cover the promise of 40 acres and a mule that was made post-war.  It's a post-war promise that was reneged on by the Johnson administration, so the blood spilled in the War isn't payment to address that promise.

 

Theres an entire floor in the Native American museum in DC dedicated to all the broken promises and treaties we made to them.  Theres no dollar amount that can make up for everything this country has done to everyone.

 

I wouldnt want a red cent as some form of apology.  What I want is the funding for public schools matched from one location to the next based on higher value areas using property tax to have better schools.  Theres no making up for what was done, the focus needs to be on what's holding back black people today and that's access to quality education so they can join the work force with everyone else.  Insist on universal pre-k and FFS stop having so many black kids drinking lead tainted water.  The first thing any red state will do is say the repirations are done and feel no reason at all to look out for all their citizens instead of jus some of them.

 

They had slaves building the White House, theres no way to make up for that, imo.

[Bozo the kKklown]

Reparations for slavery and for housing inequality plz, thanks.

 

Make the banks and insurance companies along with the USA to pay what they owe. Then make something for the housing discrimination that was crafted by FDR.