The Energon Pub

Posted: **Thu May 24, 2007 1:51 pm**

Keith wrote:I am very familiar with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Thank you. The Voter Right Act I referred to has to do with the federal enforcement of these rights. That Act essentially gave the federal government the right to enforce these constitutional provisions. It essentially undid the Jim Crow laws designed to deny (specifically) Black folks the right to vote. In essence, this Federal provision was put into place to protect its (Black) citizens from local, county and state legislation put into place to strip them of their right as citizens. This being the case, I believe my point still stands. It is an ACT, not LAW, that providesand protects Blacks with the right to vote. So, I may be a little more educated on this matter than you gave me credit for.

You're wrong. The "Voting Rights Act" of 1965 only does two things:

1. Outlaw literacy tests to qualify for voter registration; and
2. Provide federal registration in areas with less than 50% of the minority population registered.

Read the document because you certainly don't have a clue about it's provisions. Here's a link to the actual act.

I don't care what you say to back track or cover your ass but you did make this exact comment:

Keith wrote:Did you know that Black people still do not have the right to vote? Black people's right to vote is granted by an ACT, not a law, that is reviewed and extended every 25 years.

That is a total and complete lie. It's that simple. Did you read it on Al Sharpton's website or something? Good grief. Moving on. All of the other explicit protections for voting are in the 14th and 24th Amendments while the right itself is ensured in the 15th.

lkavadas wrote:Reparations? The deaths of 366,222 Union soldiers aren't enough to satisfy you? Or doesn't their sacrifice count?

Keith wrote:But the civil war was not fought to free slaves. It was fought to preserve the union, and to create a string federal government.

Preserve the Union? What divided it? State rights versus federal authority, correct? What issue was the crux of the debate and the major point of contention? Slavery. That was simple.

At any rate, your answer is no. Their blood and sacrifice isn't enough to satiate you. The deaths of 366,222 men can't satisfy but monetary reparations will? How shallow are you? Do you even realize what you're saying? Or how horrible and pathetic it makes you sound? It's atrocious and offensive.

Keith wrote:As far as reparations, re-read my earlier post about reparations provided to Chinese and Japanese people. To Native Americans. Again, it is not unprecedented. Why for them and not us? An apology is a gesture. Something tangible, however small, might be in order.

I'm telling you it's not right for anyone and it all needs to stop right now. Our entire nation is based around the premise of equality at every single level yet we have how many government programs that operate solely on racial and gender specific standards? How is that for government equality? Not only are all of these programs inherently wrong by bestowing preferential treatment based on race but they should be outlawed or overturned as unconstitutional and racist.

I said in my first post an apology was warranted and deserved. I have no problem with that but do you honestly think that receiving money from the government for past treatment after you've already received equality maintains it? Hell no! It shatters it and creates yet another divide between the races and yet another issue people can use as ammunition for racism on both sides.

Do you want to be equal with everyone else or do you want special treatment because of the color of your skin? Well, we already know what you want. You want special treatment because your black. Guess what, that's the definition of inequality. Here it is just in case you're confused:

Dictionary wrote:–noun, plural -ties.
1. the condition of being unequal; lack of equality; disparity: inequality of size.
2. social disparity: inequality between the rich and the poor.
3. disparity or relative inadequacy in natural endowments: a startling inequality of intellect, talents, and physical stamina.
4. injustice; partiality.
5. unevenness, as of surface.
6. an instance of unevenness.
7. variableness, as of climate.
8. Astronomy.
a. any component part of the departure from uniformity in astronomical phenomena, esp. in orbital motion.
b. the amount of such a departure.
9. Mathematics. a statement that two quantities are unequal, indicated by the symbol ≠; alternatively, by the symbol , signifying that the quantity preceding the symbol is greater than that following.

As for the cost. Let's get into that, shall we? According to the CIA World Fact Book 12.9% of the current U.S. population qualifies as "African American."

So if the current U.S. population is 301,916,081 (according to the Census Bureau's Population Clock) that would mean there are approximately 38,947,174.

So, reparations? How much money do you think you deserve? $10,000 per person? $1,000 per person? $500 per person? $100 per person?

Here's the breakdown for all of the above values:

$10,000 per person, Total: $389,471,744,490
$1,000 per person, Total: $38,947,174,000
$500 per person, Total: $19,743,587,000
$100 per person, Total: $3,894,717,400

We're talking billions upon billions of taxpayer money here. This money doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from my pocket. It comes from your pocket. And the feasible levels at $500 and $100 are a slap in the face. If half a G is what you need for "closure" you're a very shallow human being.

Keith wrote:However, this country is as great as it is in LARGE part due to the contributions of Black people. There have been many groups representing many lands and cultures that have made contributions to America. Blacks are among those who have made great contributions. And I am not talking about sports and musics (though we dominate...LOL). I am talking politics, science, literature, arts, etc.

Wow. So again, this makes you special? Every group of people that have come to America have done everything you listed. I can simply replace "Black" with "Italian" or "Asian" or "White" and guess what? The paragraph still rings true, doesn't it? You're actually not special. No one is, let alone a group of people because of their skin. Stop wiping your ass with the Declaration of Independence the exact same way slave owners did.

If you truly and honest believe equality has arrived why are advocating further unequal treatment? They're not mutually exclusive. One completely contradicts and overturns the premise of the other.

Keith wrote:Reparations have to do with REPAIRING the damage done. They are about closure. To deny the legitamacy of the reparation claim, is to deny the wrongs that were committed. Is this what you are saying?

Closure? More like $$$. An apology is closure. Recieving federal money based on the color of your skin is racist and just reinforces the inequality you think it secures.

Keith wrote:As far as equality, we are already equal. That is not the issue. The issue is acknowledgement and closure. You can't just expect to say "oops!!! my bad" to millions and millions of people displaced and bastardized via American slavery.

Yes, I do think an apology is all that is needed and if I were in your shoes that's all I would want because anything further would be condescending and racist.

Keith wrote:As a second generation American, you cannot relate. You can here willingly. You maintain you sense of history and identity (as evidenced by your "Brindisi" comment). These are things Black people do not have.

Wow, my family came from Italy and the family records only extend back to 1917. That's where all of the history of my family begins. 1917.

Black families were certainly here well before 1917 ever rolled along so in theory you should have a larger historical record on your family than I have.

I maintain my sense of history and identity? How do you figure? The only part of my heritage pre-America I care about are Italian recipes and Ancient Roman history. I don't give two shits about the rest because the only nation that matters to me is America. **** Italy and **** Europe. I have no love for any nation on earth besides this one. It's why I enlisted in the army five years ago. It's why I've spent half of my adult life fighting in Iraq. It's why I have no regrets and it's why I love what I do and if a superior of mine walked up to me right now this second and said, "Ready for a third?" my answer would be, "Your goddam right I am."

So you want equality? The hell you do. If you did an apology would be all you need for closure. Instead you want money :-?

Posted: **Thu May 24, 2007 2:52 pm**

lkavadas wrote:We're talking billions upon billions of taxpayer money here. This money doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from my pocket. It comes from your pocket. And the feasible levels at $500 and $100 are a slap in the face. If half a G is what you need for "closure" you're a very shallow human being.

That doesn't count the cost of researching how much of the population are descenants of slaves versus who immigrated to this country willingly.

Ikavades, I will admit, you're not my favorite person on this site (nor are you my least favorite), but I applaude you for making a valid, if not completely civil, arguement.

Posted: **Thu May 24, 2007 3:32 pm**

lkavadas,

I replied to your inbox. I am trying to respect the forum. However, I never made mention of $$$. I realize the lack logistical feasibility. I said a "tangible token".

But it is sad that the prospective financial outlay is what is standing between people and doing the right thing. If the $$$ figure were smaller, you would feel differently? I think this shouldbe a principle issue.

I will share this...research was done a Harvard some time to model back wages (adjusted for inflation and cost of labor changed to present). The model yielded a number over $10 Trillion.

Posted: **Thu May 24, 2007 3:48 pm**

lkavadas wrote:
Keith wrote:As a second generation American, you cannot relate. You can here willingly. You maintain you sense of history and identity (as evidenced by your "Brindisi" comment). These are things Black people do not have.

Wow, as a person who has a lot of Native American blood, I guess I have both of you beat! My ancesters (of Southestern Pennsylvania) have probably been here for at least 8,000 years, and maybe more if they had mixed with the earlier population. I don't know how long the Western ones were here though. But anyway to be honest, my ancesters had the threat of extermination, they had their land taken away, they were dehumanized and called 'savages.' To this day people who are my distant relatives live in poverty on reservations and deal with a big problem of alcoholism. BUT, and this is a big BUT, and I don't claim to speak for others and this is a opinion of mine, but the people who originally did this to my ancesters are all dead. So are my anecesters. You shouldn't punish people for something that the people before them did and not they themselves. It doesn't undo what happened in the past. What would possibly help undo would be to help them deal with the alcoholism, and the poverty in the present. That is how you do it,I think. No special treatment based on race, but as people. Special treatment based on race is racism, but the differance is being able to feel good about it instead and allowing you to sleep at night.

Posted: **Thu May 24, 2007 4:47 pm**

Keith wrote:I am trying to respect the forum. However, I never made mention of $$$. I realize the lack logistical feasibility. I said a "tangible token".

But it is sad that the prospective financial outlay is what is standing between people and doing the right thing.

Well, you've clearly established with the above quote that you have a sense of entitlement to money based on the past treatment of your race. Guess what, that's racist. And again, you've just reinforced even further you're desire to have the government give you money because of the color of your skin. Again, racist. You say it's not about money but every sentence after that explicitly states that is exactly what it's about to you. If I were one of your ancestors I'd be absolutely ashamed of your position knowing that all it would take to shut you up forever is a handful of cash. That's just flat out disgraceful to not only every slave that ever lived, but every single abolitionist, every single Union soldier (especially the black ones), and Abe Lincoln himself.

You're ego can be bought. You've already put a price on it. That diminishes the sacrifices of every single human being that has ever fought against racism across the globe.

"Just give me money and then it'll be okay."

No, no it won't be okay.

Dude, if you don't know why the Voter's Rights Act was put into place, I cannot help you understand. The ACT was put into place to protect Black people from local and state governments that had effectively removed Black's right to vote. Yes, the two items you point out are articulated in the document. However, specific to item #2, the federal government had to give itslef the right to ensure that eligible Black voters were permitted to register to vote. Local voter registration agencies were refusing to register Black voters. So, if your point is that the Voter's Right Act is a generic provision allowing the federal government to protect all citize's right to vote, then you are correct. However, only Black people have ever needed the ACT. This was its purpose. Period. No back-tracking necessary. The ONLY thing technically preventing the reinstitution of Jim Crow laws is this ACT (i.e., not LAW), which needs to be extended every 25 years.

You're failure to separate cause from effect is why you're wrong. The Jim Crow laws were merely the cause. The effect was an act which clearly establishes these two protections to every human being in this nation. This act protects all of us but the fact that it was ever instituted in the first place is shameful.

This act came about because of racist southern states crapping all over the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment already extends everything in this act and protections that go well beyond. It was just never enforced. It's like immigration law. They keep piling more and more on but we already have every law we need. What we lack is proper enforcement.

This act is to voting what the new comprehensive immigration bill is to immigration. Completely unnecessary had the original laws been enforced.

I mean good grief, these states wouldn't even accept or enforce Constitutional law. Something had to be done. But in this day and age don't think that the ACLU doesn't bust out this act to protect Mexican Americans because guess what? They have and do.

You can go here to view a list of instances where the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was used to protect groups other than black Americans.

Just to give a quick rundown from that list the act was used to:

June 13, 1966
In Katzenbach v. Morgan, the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of Section 4(e) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination against Puerto Rican voters in New York.
1970
In Garza v. Smith, the federal court in Texas overturns laws prohibiting assistance for Mexican American voters.
In Dunn v. Blumstein, the U.S. Supreme Court decides that Tennessee's "Duration Residency" Rule is unconstitutional, giving more people the opportunity to vote.
In a landmark federal court ruling, Torres v. Sachs outlaws New York's English-only election system as a discriminatory
President Gerald Ford signs legislation reauthorizing the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act and making the permanent ban on literacy tests apply nationwide. The bill also mandates assistance for language minority voters.
Minority voting rights are strengthened in White v. Regester, when the U.S. Supreme Court rules that Texas redistricting is unconstitutional because it dilutes minority voting strength in Bexar County.
Congress reathorizes the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act for 25 years and overturns City of Mobile v. Bolden thereby removing the requirement that discriminatory intent (as opposed to effect) be proven in order to win a Section 2 lawsuit.
In Thornburg v. Gingles, the U.S. Supreme Court strengthens minority voting rights by invalidating multi-member state legislative districts in North Carolina.
Congress passes the Americans with Disabilities Act which, among other things, requires that election workers and polling sites provide a range of services to ensure that people with disabilities can vote.
The language minority provisions of Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act are extended 15 years and strengthened by adjusting the population thresholds to allow for assistance to more voters with limited English proficiency.
The National Voter Registration Act, also known as the "Motor Voter" Bill, makes registration more uniform and accessible, especially for minority and low income voters.
The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Shaw v. Reno that a cause of action can be brought by white residents of majority black districts who contend that in drawing district lines the state subordinated traditional redistricting principles to race.

That's just a few but as you can see your statement:

Keith wrote:The ACT was put into place to protect Black people from local and state governments that had effectively removed Black's right to vote.

This act has protected blacks, minorities, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Cubans, people who can't speak english, handicapped people, and even white folk. Wow, seems to me like the act applies to whole hell of a lot more than just black people, don't ya think?

Where is the debate? Moreover, do you wonder WHY the Voter Right Act has not been signed into law?

Wrong again, my friend. The Act was signed into law by Richard Nixon in 1970 with a renewal clause because the act is not meant to be permanent (Source, scroll down to 1970). The theory behind it is that eventually we'd progress as a nation to a point where we don't need it. As we saw in the list above we obviously still need it and not just to protect black voting rights but to protect all our voting rights.

Keith wrote:And am familiar enough with the federal vs. state's rights debate. No need to go there. However, considering the entire context of the Voter's Rights Act, mine is a very reasonable position to take. Why? B/c even after the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, Black STILL were not allowed to vote in MANY states. This is not debatable. You seem to know your stuff. I am frankly shocked at the position you are tryign to take here.

What position? The position where I think it's completely racist and un-American and a complete slap in the face to the concept of racial equality that you think the government owes you money because your black?

I never said we need to overturn the act or that it shouldn't have ever happened. I certainly wish we as a nation never needed it, along with the 14th and 15th Amendments, and I certainly wish we never allowed the institution of slavery as it completely contradicted almost every single statement the fathers of our nation made.

On other hand I think any and all preferential treatment based on no other factor than race is offensive and disgraceful to both me and this nation at large. By creating and maintaining these distinctions and entitlements race simply becomes more a point of contention than it ever was before.

How can racism ever die if we keep instituting racist laws? Or keep drawing distinctions between races? This not how America is supposed to operate. Either none of us are special enough to get anything because of the color of our skin or all of us are special enough to get something because of the color of our skin. That is equality.

If the $$$ figure were smaller, you would feel differently? I think this shouldbe a principle issue.

No, I don't care if it's a single red son-of-a-bitchin' penny. It's wrong no matter the sum for any race to demand preferential government treatment, particularly cash handouts funded entirely by Johnny Taxpayer.

I will share this...research was done a Harvard some time to model back wages (adjusted for inflation and cost of labor changed to present). The model yielded a number over $10 Trillion.

And yet here you are advocating and arguing monetary compensation under the guise of reparations. Heh...

Keith wrote:Let me ask you this, if you were falsely imprisoned, and then exonerrated some time later after supporting evidence was provided, would you feel "thankful" to your jailer?. I wouldn't.

I wouldn't be thankful to the jailor. I'd be thankful that system eventually got it right and I sure as hell wouldn't want my great-great grandchild whining about how the government owes them money because of how I was treated. I find that horribly disgraceful.

Another thing, I certainly acknowlegded the many people who died fighting the civil war. Re-read the post. Do you know that MILLIONS of African slaves died in the Middle Passage? MILLIONS. In case you don't know, I am referring to the TRIP across the Atlantic. MILLIONS. These are people who never even MADE it to America. Where is America's, or Europe's acknowledgement of those souls.

In terms of trafficked slaves by nation the U.S. ranks at or near the bottom of nations that partook. Why aren't you demanding money from the Portuguese, or the Brits, or the Dutch, or the Belgians? They're the ones that brought the huge majority of slaves here, not Americans.

And what does this issue have to do with anything? So now you think you're owned money for both slavery and slave trafficking? What other things do you think you're entitled to?

Y'know what, I think the government owes me money because they disgraced my family heritage by butchering my familial surname at Ellis Island? Oh wait, I don't. While your current surname may have absolutely nothing to do with your ancestral heritage at least it's spelled correctly.

Keith wrote:I made no mention of $$$. I said a token of acknowledgement. I was not specific. YOU are stuck on $$$. I would settle for world-class schools in the inner city. I would settle for increase higher education grants for minorities. A check is not going to do anything.

Yes, let's enact more racist legislation. If you want better education in the inner city then get off your ass and do something for the cause. What have you ever personally done to promote better education in inner city schools?

Maybe inner city residents should stop electing who they are electing. Inner cities have been under the control of liberal representatives for well over half a century and have things got any better or changed? Not really. I'm not saying that conservatives have any better answers but after fifty years of a failing system I'd quit electing the architects of the failures. It's not a hard concept. The most power you'll ever have is inside of a voting booth. Exercise it.

Keith wrote:I never said we are special. But in some ways Blacks are different. We did not immigrate like your family, or those your mentioned above. We were IMPORTED. Therefore you simply cannot relate. Again, I have an Irish name. I am certainly not Irish. Trust me. Ours is an experience unlike any group of people on the planet. You can't try to dismiss or diminish it, but the fact remains that Blacks were stripped of 1) name; 2) language; 3) culture; 4) religion; 5) humanity. And you are telling me to "get over it" because you are tried of hearing about it. Wow. Listen to you.

I never said to get over it. I simply think it's absolutely ridiculous that because of a past you didn't personally experience at all gives you the right to demand special treatment because of your race. That's racist.

Like you said, you're different, not special. Hence you do not deserve any more special treatment than I or Tiger Woods or Condoleeze Rice or even Dick Cheney. We're all Americans. We're all equal. Your demands upset equality and there's no simpler way to phrase it.

Additonally, the civil right struggle in this country...led by Blacks, created a much more accepting and accomodating culture when it comes to ethnic and racial diversity. So, in many ways, Europeans, the East and South Asians, and the Hispanic immigrants do benefit from the Black struggles and victories in the Civil Rights movement.

Hell, even white people benefit from it if you go over the list I made up there a bit. These are all good things.

Keith wrote:You are correct, we should. But we don't. This is the point I have been trying to make. At least you know what country (Italy) you people hail from. I will never no this b/c my families history is destroyed. Like I said, you cannot relate.

You're right, I can't. And I don't pretend to.

Lastly, I am not looking for equality. My folks earned that over the last half century. I have that. I want closure.

Equality is closure. If being equal to your fellow man isn't enough to satisfy your desire for closure then there is nothing on earth that ever will, because nothing on earth is as priceless.

When the generic "they" committed crimes against my people, they did it KNOWINGLY with conviction. Google this "Posterity will never forgive us!!" I want the reckoning to be done with the same sincerity and conviction. A simple verbal apology cannot possibly suffice. But I was purposely not specific as to what the reparations should be. But I do find it funny that the overall cost is what is eating at you. If there were fewer Black people, requiring less money, you'd be okay with it. LOL. Just so you know, a Harvard economist modeled the back wages that Black slaves (not all Black people...just slaves) would be (projected and adjusted for inflation). The number would be over $10 Trillion. Now that is comical.

Well, if you can make the above bolded comment with a straight face then you haven't comprehended a word of any post I've made on the subject.

The amount of money means nothing to me. The basic principle you advocate of government monetary entitlement based on no other contributing factor besides the color of one's skin absolutely sickens me and that's exactly what you're advocating, sir. Preferential racial treatment. That flies in the face of everything blacks have fought for in this country. It's shameful and embarassing that you feel this way.

Keith wrote:So you know, the Japanese survivors of the WWII internment camps were awarded $1.2 Million. Australia is negotiating reparations with the Aborginals there for centuries od land grabbing and displacement.

Both instances of the governments are wrong. Just as the mistreatment that originally took place was wrong so is the racial preferential treatment after the fact. How can we ever move beyond race as long race remains a factor in government entitlements? It's all sick and it all needs to be stop. This type of legislation is destructive and it's reversing the progress we've made.

Keith wrote:But I didn't mention $$$ once. I said something tangible, however small.

I don't think you deserve anything tangible. I don't think anyone deserves any type of tangible treatment which is predicated on making up for past racial mistreatment.

The fact of the matter remains. Do you want to be equal or not? You're entire position wreaks of inequality and racism. Like I said earlier, if equality can't satisfy your lust for closure than there is nothing in this world that can.

------------------

Keith is PMing me these responses but I want this discussion public so I'm replying here.

Keith wrote:1. You obviously feel that Black people should be thankful for the sacrifices that mostly white soldiers made in winning our freedom. You seem to be ignoring the sacrifices Blacks made in winning their own freedom.

Gee whiz, I didn't know that the term "Union soldier" meant "white guy in a blue uniform." There were tens of thousands of black Union soldiers. The fact remains, they were soldiers. Not black soldiers, not white soldiers. Soldiers. That is the only distinction that matters in this particular reference.

And you also seem to be ignoring the fact that ALL Americans possibly owe a debt of gratitude to Black people for the very unique and critical role we played in the development of this country. Slavery. Do you think we've been properly thanked? Do you think we are "square" with America?

Yes, we certainly do owe a lot of gratitude because the achievements and progress made which was spurred by blacks in American history has led to a multitude of very positive things which have benefited peoples well beyond African Americans. I find it hilarious that you'd argue this point against me as my previous post contains a large of list of particular instances where people other than blacks benefited from the changes wrought by the black struggle.

2. You seem to be operating under the assumption that after the slaves were freed that all was good. Blacks had to eat at different restuarants. Drink from different fountains. Go to different schools. All were invariably substandarda compared to the facilities for whites. These are the Jim Crow laws I referred to. They were not repealed until the late 1960's. Schools were not integrated until 1972. Public schools. My parents went to segregated schools. And neither is older than 55.

Ummm, no, I'm not operating under that assumption in the slightest. Reread my previous posts. I'm pretty sure any neutral third party observer would refute your claim and would actually feel that I've supported my argument with extra special attention to historical detail, facts, statistics, and my provision of sources. Hell, the only thing my posts have lacked is a proper bibliography.

Thunderscream wrote:Ikavades, I will admit, you're not my favorite person on this site (nor are you my least favorite), but I applaude you for making a valid, if not completely civil, arguement.

Curse of the hard chargin' Libertarian

Posted: **Thu May 24, 2007 7:35 pm**

Keith wrote:I will share this...research was done a Harvard some time to model back wages (adjusted for inflation and cost of labor changed to present). The model yielded a number over $10 Trillion.

No offense or anything, but...

Could you at least provide a link or something? Ikavadas has been generous enough to cite some sources. If you want some modicum of credibility, ya' might want to consider doing the same before quoting a 'Harvard Study'. We're interested, but there's this little thing called 'burden of proof'.

Unless of course we use the honour system now for some reason :???:

Posted: **Fri May 25, 2007 4:56 am**

After reading all this, I have come to the conclusion that Ilkavadas makes the most logical, thought-out argument. Reparations to a specific race based because of their race (and what that race endured in history) is in itself racist. It draws a distinction between who deserves retribution and who doesn't based solely on their race. That cannot be just.

Furthermore, why should we pay for crimes not committed by us, not even committed by us in our lifetimes? Why should people who haven't been slaves themselves receive reparations? It doesn't make sense.

Posted: **Fri May 25, 2007 8:16 am**

Zombie Starscream wrote:
lkavadas wrote:
Keith wrote:As a second generation American, you cannot relate. You can here willingly. You maintain you sense of history and identity (as evidenced by your "Brindisi" comment). These are things Black people do not have.

Wow, as a person who has a lot of Native American blood, I guess I have both of you beat! My ancesters (of Southestern Pennsylvania) have probably been here for at least 8,000 years, and maybe more if they had mixed with the earlier population. I don't know how long the Western ones were here though. But anyway to be honest, my ancesters had the threat of extermination, they had their land taken away, they were dehumanized and called 'savages.' To this day people who are my distant relatives live in poverty on reservations and deal with a big problem of alcoholism. BUT, and this is a big BUT, and I don't claim to speak for others and this is a opinion of mine, but the people who originally did this to my ancesters are all dead. So are my anecesters. You shouldn't punish people for something that the people before them did and not they themselves. It doesn't undo what happened in the past. What would possibly help undo would be to help them deal with the alcoholism, and the poverty in the present. That is how you do it,I think. No special treatment based on race, but as people. Special treatment based on race is racism, but the differance is being able to feel good about it instead and allowing you to sleep at night.

Yes, you certainly do have Black folks beat. What happened to Native Americans is the greatest crime against humanity in history. I mean that sincerely.

I don't know if I agree that it is all in the past. These people are still suffering due to the things that were done to them back then. And people today are still benefitting from those crimes. There are still "Old Money" families who got rich off Native American spilled blood. And I dson't agree that special treatment based on race is racism necessarily. Not when it is a purposeful and appropriate attempt to right past wrongs. Do you believe that tax exemption and no college tuition is inappropriate in lieu of what was done to Native Americans?

Posted: **Fri May 25, 2007 9:17 am**

Leonardo wrote:Furthermore, why should we pay for crimes not committed by us, not even committed by us in our lifetimes? Why should people who haven't been slaves themselves receive reparations? It doesn't make sense.

I don't know, Leonardo. Why should you? Let me ask you this: Do you believe that Black people still suffer the effects of American oppression? Honestly? Do you think all that damage goes away in a few decades? I can tell you definitely 'Yes'. But that is me. What do you think? Seriously. Because your answers to those questions will speaks volumes as to your openness on this issue. Either way, of course, it is your right to believe what you believe.

My answer to your question is "Because white people still benefit from an institution and infrastructure built on the backs of slaves". Black people benefit as well, true. But the reparations are about righting past wrongs. Not current issues.

Posted: **Fri May 25, 2007 9:18 am**

Ilkavadas,

You have actually supported my point. The "cause" of the Voter's Rights Act was the purposeful oppression of Black people in this country. The intentional and malicious restriction of Black people's rights as citizens. Period. The "effect", as you correctly put it, was the creation and a legislative provision that protects all people's rights. There was no mention of race. Nor should there have been. But that does not mean that the motivations were not racial, specifically the plight of Black people.

I am very proud that all people benefit from the struggles and victories of Black people. However, that is completely beside the point.

Merriam-Webster says that racism is "1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Or 2: racial prejudice or discrimination:

Acknowledging wrongs committed by, or permitted by, the state against a subset of its people should not fit either one of those definitions in the mind of a reasonable person. I don't see where reparations are racist.

lkavadas,
I don't know how many times I have to say it. I made no mention of money. You did. I gave examples of where money was provided in the past. This was not to say that Blacks should get money. Paying Black people back would be too cost prohibitve.

As far as a link. I will try to find one. I actually read about the study in school years ago. But before you try to undermine my credibility consider this: a single slave who works 12 hrs per day for 35 years, would be owed almost $800k in back wages (@ $5.15/hr). Consider the fact that the millions of African slaves worked over 250 year period, it is not hard to get to $10 trillion. This does not include intangible damages that I have outlined in earlier posts.

Nevertheless, I will try to get a link.

Ilkavadas,
The government does not owe me money b/c I am Black. The government owes me reparations (there IS a distinction) 1) b/c of the unique role Black people have played in the development of the country; 2) b/c of unprecedented damage done to a people as a result of the slavery practice; 3) because of the fact that wealth built on the backs of African slaves is still being enjoyed by the descendents of slavers; and 4) b/c of clear historical and legal precedent.

I believe that the Native Americans deserve their reparations. Hell, I believe they should have gotten more. Oh yeah, they aren't Black. I believe the Japanese interned peopled deserved their. I believed the Australian Aboriginal peoples deserve theirs. I believe the Chinese folks deserve theirs. These are non-Africans. Non-Blacks. This is not a "Black-thing". You are trying to undercut the point by devolving the discussion to a Black thing. This is an issue of fairness and equity. You cannot relate b/c it did not happen to you.

Regarding Jim Crow, did you know that within a decade after the abolition of slavery, there were Black land owners. Even the mayor of Atlanta was black. The Black people who go their 40 acres (there were many who were granted state owned land by tghe Federal government), along with those who purchased their own land (there were many). They all had there land and property stolen from them by local whites. The actions were sanctioned by the local and state governments. The federal government, under Andrew Johnson, was actually sympathetic to the cause. This time period saw the rise of the KKK. THEY know about racism, people.

Lastly, this is not about Black people or poor people mooching off the government. Black folks are doing just fine. Considering we didn't secure full rights as citizens until 1972 (integration of schools), sucessive Secretaries of State, and a very viable presidential candidate....those are emblematic of the type of work Black people have put in over the last 45 years. We are rightfully very proud. We do not want "handouts", as you are implying. We want reparations. And note...I still have not said anything about $$$$.

Merriam Webster says that reparations are :
2 a: the act of making amends, offering expiation, or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury b: something done or given as amends or satisfaction. OR 3: the payment of damages : indemnification; specifically : compensation in money or materials payable by a defeated nation for damages to or expenditures sustained by another nation as a result of hostilities with the defeated nation — usually used in plural

I have been very clearly focused on definition #2. Nowhere do you see anything akin to a "handout". EDIT: And, as you can see, reparations do not necessarily denote $$$. There are things that could be provided that would be much more impactful than cash. I told you world class school in the inner cities. I told you minority college scholarships. I never said these should only be for BLACKS, did I?

I am truly amazed at how you are interpreting what I am writing. It is really sad actually.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro.htm

Please read this to get clear on the "cause/effect issue" re: Voting Right Act of 1965. First paragraph of the intro.

Posted: **Fri May 25, 2007 9:32 am**

AfterImage wrote:
Keith wrote:I will share this...research was done a Harvard some time to model back wages (adjusted for inflation and cost of labor changed to present). The model yielded a number over $10 Trillion.

No offense or anything, but...

Could you at least provide a link or something? Ikavadas has been generous enough to cite some sources. If you want some modicum of credibility, ya' might want to consider doing the same before quoting a 'Harvard Study'. We're interested, but there's this little thing called 'burden of proof'.

Unless of course we use the honour system now for some reason

http://www.millionsforreparations.com/feagin.html

It is a long article. Take a look. I can't find a link to the Harvard study. Sorry. I will keep looking.

Anyway, if you can't get to a trillion dollar number in 90 secs and a calculator, I can't help you.

If I am edgy, I apologize. Tired of the potshots.

Posted: **Fri May 25, 2007 2:08 pm**

Keith wrote:Acknowledging wrongs committed by, or permitted by, the state against a subset of its people should not fit either one of those definitions in the mind of a reasonable person. I don't see where reparations are racist.

I have nothing against acknowledging it. I've said numerous times it should be done and should be publically apologized for. But here you say two completely different things. You say it should be acknowledged and that should be it. The next sentence is "Whaaaaaa, I want reparations because I'm a slave descendent." That's racist.

I don't know how to phrase this any simpler. Racism does not only imply negative special treatment of a particular race. Racism can also apply to positive special treatment. This positive special treatment based on no other contributing factor than race is racist and wrong. Every single person in this thread has realized this except you.

I don't know how many times I have to say it. I made no mention of money. You did. I gave examples of where money was provided in the past. This was not to say that Blacks should get money. Paying Black people back would be too cost prohibitve.

Whether it's too cost prohibitive doesn't matter. It's the entire principle that is wrong. Blacks were treated specially in the past and fought to gain equality. Here you are a century after the civil war and half a century after the civil rights movement demanding special treatment in their name. Don't you realize how that besmirches and marginalizes everything they fought for? Your race didn't go through everything it did and fight that hard just so their posterity could turn around and start demanding special treatment. That is completely contrary to what they were fighting for. How can you not realize this?

The government does not owe me money b/c I am Black. The government owes me reparations (there IS a distinction) 1) b/c of the unique role Black people have played in the development of the country; 2) b/c of unprecedented damage done to a people as a result of the slavery practice; 3) because of the fact that wealth built on the backs of African slaves is still being enjoyed by the descendents of slavers; and 4) b/c of clear historical and legal precedent.

The government doesn't owe any particular race of people jack ****, buddy. The only allegiance the government should have to any specific group of people are U.S. citizens. That's it. That's where it ends. This is the group your ancestors fought to be a part of and they won.

I believe that the Native Americans deserve their reparations. Hell, I believe they should have gotten more. Oh yeah, they aren't Black. I believe the Japanese interned peopled deserved their. I believed the Australian Aboriginal peoples deserve theirs. I believe the Chinese folks deserve theirs. These are non-Africans. Non-Blacks. This is not a "Black-thing". You are trying to undercut the point by devolving the discussion to a Black thing. This is an issue of fairness and equity. You cannot relate b/c it did not happen to you.

Bullshit I can't relate. Guess what? You can't relate to slavery or Jim Crow laws any better than I can. Quit hiding behind this. You never experienced any of this because your ancestors went through hell to ensure you wouldn't ever have to. This is the weakest excuse you could have ever brought up.

Not even Zombie Starscream, who is Native American, agrees with you Keith. His people basically suffered through genocide and last I looked genocide trumps slavery on the "horrible things to do to a race of people" list. The suffering of his people far outclasses your's and after everything his people have gone through all he wants for his people is help in dealing with alcoholism and poverty. How humble is that? He certainly doesn't seem to swagger around with an attitude of entitlement like you have for something he never experienced. That's downright noble of him of in my book.

Regarding Jim Crow, did you know that within a decade after the abolition of slavery, there were Black land owners. Even the mayor of Atlanta was black. The Black people who go their 40 acres (there were many who were granted state owned land by tghe Federal government), along with those who purchased their own land (there were many). They all had there land and property stolen from them by local whites.

That's quite the blanket statement and stereotype. Source please. I've spent about twenty minutes, which is I realize isn't much time, looking for some corroborating sources and I haven't found any credible or otherwise. While I don't doubt the validity that it happened in particular instances this statement comes off as actually quite racist and offensive when you don't provide a drop of evidence to back it up. Not that you've provided any evidence for anything anyways.

We want reparations.There are things that could be provided that would be much more impactful than cash. I told you world class school in the inner cities. I told you minority college scholarships. I never said these should only be for BLACKS, did I?

Minority college scholarships and "world class inner city schools" aren't free. In fact, those two things combined would probably cost more than just giving y'all a grand a piece but before you do, I have to ask you not to. Don't bring up the "you don't want to do it because of cost." That's a bullshit copout, sir, and I've responded to it numerous times and I don't feel the need to again.

However, something as basic public schooling shouldn't have anything to do with race. You're implying that a poor inner city school with a mostly white student base should not get the same funding as one with a mostly black student base. Whether you meant it or not that is the reality and it's racist.

As for scholarships for minorities. Guess what, there are thousands already. And again, here you are advocating preferential treatment by the government based on no other contributing factor than the color of one's skin. How you fail to recognize the racism in that is beyond me. Everyone else here has.

The fact of the matter is this. All your ancestors who suffered and fought did so you could be the equal of any man in this nation. That is their legacy to you and you have admitted to the fruition of it in your previous posts.

You're crapping all over their legacy by demanding preferential racial treatment. They didn't go through everything they did just so you could turn around and be treated extra special by society. That is not equality. Equality is what they fought so hard for.

Just admit it, equality isn't enough for you. You want more because of the color of your skin. You want more because the color of your skin ties you to something that never happened to you and that you never experienced. You sir, are the one who doesn't understand what your race has gone through. You don't understand what it is to be a slave. You don't understand the mistreatment they endured. You don't understand the racial turbulence those who lived through the civil rights era endured. Quit pretending you do. It's disgraceful that you demand preferential racist treatment in the name of your ancestry when they so obviously would disagree you.

Posted: **Fri May 25, 2007 3:54 pm**

question; why aren't the british being asked for these reparations? my history is a little shakey but weren't we the ones who took africans form their homelands, and made them slaves? surely that is the greater wrong, no?

would you, personally, have prefered to grow up in the third world rather than the US?

Posted: **Fri May 25, 2007 3:57 pm**

You seem to be having a hard time distinguishing b/n special treatment b/c of race, and reparations.

As I have stated, reparations are about righting past wrongs. You have admitted that the American government (at various levels) has comitted wrongs against Blacks. I strogly contend that Black people TODAY suffer as a result of the ugliness of our history in this country. I wrote of "bastardization". Irrevocably cutoff from history and culture. The legitamacy of the reparations claim is not dependent on race. Japan paid reparations to Chinese people that were interned and displaced or killed during Japanese occupation. Those people are of the same race. It is very simple, when you do something wrong to someone, it is the just thing to do to acknowledge your transgession. IF the wrongs are heinous enough, sometimes more than words are necessary. This has been done throughout human history.

Acknowledgement. See Merriam Webster. 1 a: the act of acknowledging b: recognition or favorable notice of an act or achievement
2: a thing done or given in recognition of something received
3: a declaration or avowal of one's act or of a fact to give it legal validity.

Note definition #2. Acknowledgement is not limited to words or acceptance.

I could see your point if reparations were some sort of special GIFT. Then your "special treatment is unfair" point would hold with me. But, again, reparations are owed under these circumstances. We earned them through blood, sweat and suffering. We simply have a right to some lasting, public acknowledgement of the crimes against our people. And "sorry" won't cut it.

As far as Native Americans, I suppose that is pretty big-hearted of Zombie Starscream to be able to move on. However, the government has already ACKNOWLEDGED the criminality of its policies toward Native Americans in the past.

BTW...I am part native American.

As far as my not being able to relate to slavery and Jim Crow, I beg to differ. I may not have been alive during the Jim Crow period, but my parents and grandparents were. They have definitely shared what it was like. I, personally, have experienced a fair amount of salient racism. Not as much as my folks. But more than enough.

But what I am saying is not said out of anger. Believe me when I say that I am being very matter of fact about this.

Next time you think about the "old country". Heck, you may even speak Italian. Think about the millions of Black folks who can't do that. And if you choose to not identify with the "old country", be thankful that you have the CHOICE. Because that is the difference between YOUR experience and mine. I can't CHOOSE. We have never had CHOICE.

I do not think that what I would consider acceptable reparations is a lot to ask considering what has been done to us. This is not as simple as dollars and cents. It is actually becoming insulting that you keep trying bring the issue down to that level. It is about fairness and equity. It is about precendent and principle.

lkavadas wrote:

Minority college scholarships and "world class inner city schools" aren't free. In fact, those two things combined would probably cost more than just giving y'all a grand a piece but before you do, I have to ask you not to. Don't bring up the "you don't want to do it because of cost." That's a bullshit copout, sir, and I've responded to it numerous times and I don't feel the need to again.

However, something as basic public schooling shouldn't have anything to do with race. You're implying that a poor inner city school with a mostly white student base should not get the same funding as one with a mostly black student base. Whether you meant it or not that is the reality and it's racist.

As for scholarships for minorities. Guess what, there are thousands already. And again, here you are advocating preferential treatment by the government based on no other contributing factor than the color of one's skin. How you fail to recognize the racism in that is beyond me. Everyone else here has.

The fact of the matter is this. All your ancestors who suffered and fought did so you could be the equal of any man in this nation. That is their legacy to you and you have admitted to the fruition of it in your previous posts.

You're crapping all over their legacy by demanding preferential racial treatment. They didn't go through everything they did just so you could turn around and be treated extra special by society. That is not equality. Equality is what they fought so hard for.

Just admit it, equality isn't enough for you. You want more because of the color of your skin. You want more because the color of your skin ties you to something that never happened to you and that you never experienced. You sir, are the one who doesn't understand what your race has gone through. You don't understand what it is to be a slave. You don't understand the mistreatment they endured. You don't understand the racial turbulence those who lived through the civil rights era endured. Quit pretending you do. It's disgraceful that you demand preferential racist treatment in the name of your ancestry when they so obviously would disagree you.

Just so you know, world-class inner-city schools for ALL RESIDENTS, regardless of race, estabilished in the name of the millions of slaves who toiled and died building this country would be PERFECT. But, that is what and HOW I want it established. I want those words.

I understand the my people's legacy better than you give me credit for. An it seems you presume too much about me.

Here is a link to a decent article on post-civil war Southern White reaction to Black progress.

http://www.uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/gi ... ender.html

Posted: **Fri May 25, 2007 4:47 pm**

Keith wrote:You seem to be having a hard time distinguishing b/n special treatment b/c of race, and reparations.

As I have stated, reparations are about righting past wrongs. You have admitted that the American government (at various levels) has comitted wrongs against Blacks. I strogly contend that Black people TODAY suffer as a result of the ugliness of our history in this country.

But earlier you said equality has been reached. If you actually believed that than how can you believe suffering still exists? They contradict one another. You're all over the place on these issues bud. One second you make a moderate and agreeable statement and the sentence right after is completely racist or radical. Make up your mind. Either blacks are disadvantaged because of unequality or equality has been reached. Your positions changes to suit the point you're addressing.

I wrote of "bastardization". Irrevocably cutoff from history and culture. The legitamacy of the reparations claim is not dependent on race.

America had nothing to do with this point so why should we bear responsibility for it? Go bug the British, Belgians, Dutch, and Portuguese. They ran the slave trade. They stole human beings from their homes and transported them. Why aren't you bringing this up with the international governments that are actually responsible? Or is it just easier to "blame America?"

Japan paid reparations to Chinese people that were interned and displaced or killed during Japanese occupation. Those people are of the same race. It is very simple, when you do something wrong to someone, it is the just thing to do to acknowledge your transgession. IF the wrongs are heinous enough, sometimes more than words are necessary. This has been done throughout human history.

Quit using the word acknowledge as a synonym for reparations. Acknowledging something has nothing to do with making up for the act being acknowledged. Try reading your definition:

Acknowledgement. See Merriam Webster. 1 a: the act of acknowledging b: recognition or favorable notice of an act or achievement
2: a thing done or given in recognition of something received
3: a declaration or avowal of one's act or of a fact to give it legal validity.

Note definition #2. Acknowledgement is not limited to words or acceptance.

Note defintiion #2. Acknowledgment doesn't have to extend beyond the scope of words or acceptance.

Is anyone else reading this thread as frustrated about this as I am? I'm pretty sure I've said that acknowledgment and apology is completely warranted in every single post I've made in this thread.

This issue has simply gone circular. And now I don't want to acknowledge it? LOL, you don't understand a word I've written if you're still bringing this up.

Btw, I don't see the word reparations in the definition of acknowledgment, do you?

I could see your point if reparations were some sort of special GIFT. Then your "special treatment is unfair" point would hold with me. But, again, reparations are owed under these circumstances. We earned them through blood, sweat and suffering. We simply have a right to some lasting, public acknowledgement of the crimes against our people. And "sorry" won't cut it.

This paragraph and that bolded statement really says everything about you, doesn't it?

I was going to respond to the rest of your post and continue to address, and readdress, the points you made but that statement really nullifies any further responses from me.

You can't be reasoned with about this issue. I can't appeal to your logic because this issue is driven by your emotion. I've constructed pretty sound and simple arguments refuting your beliefs, provided sources to uphold them, and have even spelled it out as simply as I could for you but you don't understand them and you never will because you actively choose not to.

You simply think this nation owes you something. You think you're entitled. And Burn brings up a great point. Americans didn't rip black people from their homes in Africa and sell them into slavery, Europeans did. America has done more for black equality than any nation on this earth. There is simply no other place a black man can go on this earth and experience the same amount of freedom and prosperity.

Would you give up your cushy American life in a safe land and reverse all of slavery if you could? Do you realize the repercussions of such an action would probably mean that the blacks alive in America today would be mostly dead and living in the most desperate poverty and famine the world currently has?

You've achieved your equality. Between all of the suffering of your ancestors in their struggles to bring you equality, between the ultimate sacrifice of entire armies and warring nations, between the usurpation of what blacks won by southern racist society which later had to be battled in the civil rights era, you simply can't be satisfied.

I know I said it before but I think it warrants one final riposté. If equality can't satisfy your lust than nothing in this world can. And the fact that something like equality, perhaps the most important aspect of human civilization aside from freedom and liberty, can't satiate your ego... then what ever could? Certainly a few social programs couldn't possibly measure up to equality. If you think otherwise you need to re-evaluate your values.

I think you disgrace the legacy of your ancestors to be honest.

I won't be making another post in this thread. I've made my point. Everyone sees it but you. Ya can't get through to everyone

Posted: **Fri May 25, 2007 5:44 pm**

lkavadas wrote:
Keith wrote:You seem to be having a hard time distinguishing b/n special treatment b/c of race, and reparations.

As I have stated, reparations are about righting past wrongs. You have admitted that the American government (at various levels) has comitted wrongs against Blacks. I strogly contend that Black people TODAY suffer as a result of the ugliness of our history in this country.

But earlier you said equality has been reached. If you actually believed that than how can you believe suffering still exists? They contradict one another. You're all over the place on these issues bud. One second you make a moderate and agreeable statement and the sentence right after is completely racist or radical. Make up your mind. Either blacks are disadvantaged because of unequality or equality has been reached. Your positions changes to suit the point you're addressing.

I wrote of "bastardization". Irrevocably cutoff from history and culture. The legitamacy of the reparations claim is not dependent on race.

America had nothing to do with this point so why should we bear responsibility for it? Go bug the British, Belgians, Dutch, and Portuguese. They ran the slave trade. They stole human beings from their homes and transported them. Why aren't you bringing this up with the international governments that are actually responsible? Or is it just easier to "blame America?"

America extended the practice of slavery for almost another 100 years. THe first Americans were European colonists. The founding fathers were slavers themselves. This is a ridiculous point.

Japan paid reparations to Chinese people that were interned and displaced or killed during Japanese occupation. Those people are of the same race. It is very simple, when you do something wrong to someone, it is the just thing to do to acknowledge your transgession. IF the wrongs are heinous enough, sometimes more than words are necessary. This has been done throughout human history.

Quit using the word acknowledge as a synonym for reparations. Acknowledging something has nothing to do with making up for the act being acknowledged. Try reading your definition:

Acknowledgement. See Merriam Webster. 1 a: the act of acknowledging b: recognition or favorable notice of an act or achievement
2: a thing done or given in recognition of something received
3: a declaration or avowal of one's act or of a fact to give it legal validity.

Note definition #2. Acknowledgement is not limited to words or acceptance.

Note defintiion #2. Acknowledgment doesn't have to extend beyond the scope of words or acceptance.

Is anyone else reading this thread as frustrated about this as I am? I'm pretty sure I've said that acknowledgment and apology is completely warranted in every single post I've made in this thread.

This issue has simply gone circular. And now I don't want to acknowledge it? LOL, you don't understand a word I've written if you're still bringing this up.

Btw, I don't see the word reparations in the definition of acknowledgment, do you?

You have said many times that you think the issue should formally acknowledged and apologize for. I simply do not think that words are enough. Who are you to tell Blacks how much is enough? Don't Blacks have a say in this?

I could see your point if reparations were some sort of special GIFT. Then your "special treatment is unfair" point would hold with me. But, again, reparations are owed under these circumstances. We earned them through blood, sweat and suffering. We simply have a right to some lasting, public acknowledgement of the crimes against our people. And "sorry" won't cut it.

This paragraph and that bolded statement really says everything about you, doesn't it?

Yes. It does. You seems to feel you are in a position to determine what is sufficient for Black people to be able to move on. Why is this? Why is it so ridiculous for America to OWE the decendents of people who were enslaved to build it?

I was going to respond to the rest of your post and continue to address, and readdress, the points you made but that statement really nullifies any further responses from me.

You can't be reasoned with about this issue. I can't appeal to your logic because this issue is driven by your emotion. I've constructed pretty sound and simple arguments refuting your beliefs, provided sources to uphold them, and have even spelled it out as simply as I could for you but you don't understand them and you never will because you actively choose not to.

You simply think this nation owes you something. You think you're entitled. And Burn brings up a great point. Americans didn't rip black people from their homes in Africa and sell them into slavery, Europeans did. America has done more for black equality than any nation on this earth. There is simply no other place a black man can go on this earth and experience the same amount of freedom and prosperity.

So, b/c America is great I should just shut up about slavery. Again, America is great in large part BECAUSE of Black people. We don't have to be grateful. We EARNED America like everyone else. Reparations are not about the greatness of America, or taking advantage of America.

Would you give up your cushy American life in a safe land and reverse all of slavery if you could? Do you realize the repercussions of such an action would probably mean that the blacks alive in America today would be mostly dead and living in the most desperate poverty and famine the world currently has?

You've achieved your equality. Between all of the suffering of your ancestors in their struggles to bring you equality, between the ultimate sacrifice of entire armies and warring nations, between the usurpation of what blacks won by southern racist society which later had to be battled in the civil rights era, you simply can't be satisfied.

I know I said it before but I think it warrants one final riposté. If equality can't satisfy your lust than nothing in this world can. And the fact that something like equality, perhaps the most important aspect of human civilization aside from freedom and liberty, can't satiate your ego... then what ever could? Certainly a few social programs couldn't possibly measure up to equality. If you think otherwise you need to re-evaluate your values.

I think you disgrace the legacy of your ancestors to be honest.

This statement says it all about you. How can i reason with a man who 1) knows what is best for Black people, and what they deserve in order to move on, and 2) what thelegacy of my ancestors entails?

I won't be making another post in this thread. I've made my point. Everyone sees it but you. Ya can't get through to everyone

Cool. I am tired anyway.

Posted: **Sat May 26, 2007 10:07 am**

The problem is seeing the race as the individual vs. seeing the single biological person as the individual. Being fairly libertarian, I see the individual as the base for society. In every generation, the world is born anew...

It's just the old generation downloads all the crap they picked up into the new guy's heads, and so all the same old problems start as well.

None of the people today imported slaves into the US in slave ships, and none fought to keep slaves in the Confederacy. As well, none were enslaved, and none (I assume since the average age around here is 28 at best) had to deal with discrimination in the poles by the state itself. All the people today aren't their grandparents, nor do I look at the person's position today and say 'hey-- he could have made $40 and owned half the continent if that guy's greatXinfinity grandfather hadn't stolen his father's land-- he deserves all of that.' He still doesn't deserve the land, even if his grandfather did own it. I don't think there is even such thing as "deserved" other than what you defend as your personal jurisdiction and others allow you.

Everyone's position in life is by lot, and, if I had it, I would personally have everyone born with all the exact same material faculties to start... but, unluckily, I still believe people have the right to do with their pecuniary faculties as they will, and that means inheritance. I can see funding better school systems in poor communities and providing public works programs for those areas of the US that are below the poverty belt, but that's only in recognition that we aren't in control of where we were born, and some people, even bright and hard working, those that could be highly beneficial to society given the chance, happen to get the shit-shaft. Not because their skin pigment happens to be a rarity around where they live.

There's where I have the problem with minority scholarships. It's like 'here-- your skin is pink, where most people's here are green-- have a million dollars!' That's not my cup of tea. If you want it, prove that you can work and are better than the rest academically before you go looking for that money grant. Hell, that doesn't even differentiate between the guy who just emigrated from Pinkistan to Greenville and those whose parents were forcefully imported to work in the snot mines. It's unbalanced favoritism, and, as long as we even draw the line at skin pigment and facial features, we will continue to have that problem.

Posted: **Sun May 27, 2007 11:41 am**

The Avatar of Man wrote:The problem is seeing the race as the individual vs. seeing the single biological person as the individual. Being fairly libertarian, I see the individual as the base for society. In every generation, the world is born anew...

It's just the old generation downloads all the crap they picked up into the new guy's heads, and so all the same old problems start as well.

None of the people today imported slaves into the US in slave ships, and none fought to keep slaves in the Confederacy. As well, none were enslaved, and none (I assume since the average age around here is 28 at best) had to deal with discrimination in the poles by the state itself. All the people today aren't their grandparents, nor do I look at the person's position today and say 'hey-- he could have made $40 and owned half the continent if that guy's greatXinfinity grandfather hadn't stolen his father's land-- he deserves all of that.' He still doesn't deserve the land, even if his grandfather did own it. I don't think there is even such thing as "deserved" other than what you defend as your personal jurisdiction and others allow you.

Everyone's position in life is by lot, and, if I had it, I would personally have everyone born with all the exact same material faculties to start... but, unluckily, I still believe people have the right to do with their pecuniary faculties as they will, and that means inheritance. I can see funding better school systems in poor communities and providing public works programs for those areas of the US that are below the poverty belt, but that's only in recognition that we aren't in control of where we were born, and some people, even bright and hard working, those that could be highly beneficial to society given the chance, happen to get the shit-shaft. Not because their skin pigment happens to be a rarity around where they live.

There's where I have the problem with minority scholarships. It's like 'here-- your skin is pink, where most people's here are green-- have a million dollars!' That's not my cup of tea. If you want it, prove that you can work and are better than the rest academically before you go looking for that money grant. Hell, that doesn't even differentiate between the guy who just emigrated from Pinkistan to Greenville and those whose parents were forcefully imported to work in the snot mines. It's unbalanced favoritism, and, as long as we even draw the line at skin pigment and facial features, we will continue to have that problem.

You actually highlight my exact personal issue with the Libertarian ideology. If all people started with a level playing field, I agree 100% that each person's individual merits should dictate their lot in life. But as you pointed out, not all people start at the same point. Some get a head start. Some get a HUGE head start. The race issue is a very unfortunate one. As I trying to convey in earlier posts, this particular set of social issues just happen to be about race. They are human issues, not necessarily racial. The core questions that we all need to answer for ourselves are 1) "Do you believe there are lasting impacts from the slave institution on the descedents of slaves?" And 2) If the answer is 'yes' to #1, then "To what extend are we responsible for levelling the playing field for those disadvantaged by unique and extreme historical factors?" I would argue that, yes, the effects are still felt today. Obviously, there are no more actual slavers. And no more actaul slaves. But there are still very deep-seated psycho-social wounds resulting from the slave institution that are profoundly felt today. Yes these are hard to quantify. So, I guess, it is a matter os personal orientation whether you believe Blacks still suffer as a result of America's slave past.

My leanings are more social than yours seem to be. I believe very strongly that Human's are responsbile for the welfare of their neighbors. I believe there are serious inequities in our society. I believe that of the MANY reasons for the inequities, the institution is one. I believe that there is a moral mandate to level the playing field for all people. And I believe that there is a moral obligation to do what we can to level the field b/c we benefit from the the institution which historically disadvantaged some of its people. We have a moral mandate as human being to try to undo the damage that has been done.

Also, we are not really talking about the distant past. Often times, for those who do not share my perspective, the "that happened a long time ago" point is at the core of their argument. We are talking about institutionlized inequities within the lifetimes of many people on the board even. Legal integration of schools took place in 1972. You may have even been alive then. The wounds are still fresh. The question is whether people choose to acknowledge them. And what that acknowledgement would entail.

Posted: **Sun May 27, 2007 5:17 pm**

I can think of some upsides and downsides if blacks got reperations, but these are only opinions of mine:

Upsides: Might give some blacks a sense of self-worth, depending on what it is, might help a few families.

Downsides: Might end up causing a feeling of resentment in non-blacks. But, and this is a big one in my opinion, once reparations are given, a lot of people may actually stop listening to black problems. "We gave (or did) to you X,Y,Z, why the heck are you still complaining about this or that? (If there are still poverty problems or crime) "Why the heck are blacks still doing this or that, we just gave you X,Y,Z?!"

So reparations can be a double-edged sword. It can be good in some ways, but it can hurt in other ways.

It really depends on whether the benefits out-way the deficits in the immediate future and the long run.

Most of the people complaining in reality do not hate blacks or want to oppress them; but in today's time blacks are now just one of many special interest groups, all calling for attention. Many whites do not actually conciously try to be racist, some things they do can APPEAR to be that way, but are actually not. I know there are some bad eggs, and unfortunately when they stink, it can carry to the whole fridge.

Posted: **Sun May 27, 2007 6:10 pm**

Zombie Starscream wrote:I can think of some upsides and downsides if blacks got reperations, but these are only opinions of mine:

Upsides: Might give some blacks a sense of self-worth, depending on what it is, might help a few families.

I don't know about this. But I think I understand what you are trying to convey.

Downsides: Might end up causing a feeling of resentment in non-blacks. But, and this is a big one in my opinion, once reparations are given, a lot of people may actually stop listening to black problems. "We gave (or did) to you X,Y,Z, why the heck are you still complaining about this or that? (If there are still poverty problems or crime) "Why the heck are blacks still doing this or that, we just gave you X,Y,Z?!"

So reparations can be a double-edged sword. It can be good in some ways, but it can hurt in other ways.

It really depends on whether the benefits out-way the deficits in the immediate future and the long run.

Most of the people complaining in reality do not hate blacks or want to oppress them; but in today's time blacks are now just one of many special interest groups, all calling for attention. Many whites do not actually conciously try to be racist, some things they do can APPEAR to be that way, but are actually not. I know there are some bad eggs, and unfortunately when they stink, it can carry to the whole fridge.

I agree about most white folks not actually BEING racist. I like to think that most people are not hateful. I believe that the number of racists is actually very small. I do think that a lot of the people complaining are being insensitive to very real and legitimate concerns in minority communities.

You point about the downside to reparations, I see as a potential positive. Your theory on how white people would react to continued complaints from Blacks is, from a white perspective, what I meant as 'closure'. In a post-reparations era, what else can white people really do to close the book on the issue? I mean, short of going back in time and undoing it, we can't ever truly fix the damage done. But, reparations, in whatever form(s) they come, would allow all Americans to put the issue in the past, and move on. Don't you agree? Then, I'd agree, continued 'complaining' from Blacks would not be really legitimate. B/c there would be nothing more whites could do, right? Problem is, until now nothing has been done at all. That is where all the 'Black rage' comes from.

The Energon Pub

@ Keith RE: Reparations

@ Keith RE: Reparations

Re: @ Keith RE: Reparations

Re: @ Keith RE: Reparations