Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What he means is that when racists wouldn’t rent or give jobs to blacks, Jews were appalled by the bigotry and rented and hired blacks, the same as they did whites.Actually, what the Jews did was exploited people in places like NY
How did they do that?
I attribute to racism what you attribute to stupidity.You said "The only reason why blacks have more abortions is they don't have easy access to other forms of contraception."
Right? Is this like they can't figure out how to get ID either?
Naw, what I meant is that they would rent a rat-infested, unheated apartment to poor black people, and wonder why they were resented.What he means is that when racists wouldn’t rent or give jobs to blacks, Jews were appalled by the bigotry and rented and hired blacks, the same as they did whites.
Or maybe he means the Jewish students from NY who were murdered while marching for Civil Rights for blacks
Who knows what Joe IB an Antisemite means?
They would? Who is this “they?”Naw, what I meant is that they would rent a rat-infested, unheated apartment to poor black people, and wonder why they were resented.
I attribute to racism what you attribute to stupidity.
And notice the completely juvenile claim 'THE ONLY REASON" How goddam stupid if you'll excuse my honesty
View attachment 926044
Naw, what I meant is that they would rent a rat-infested, unheated apartment to poor black people, and wonder why they were resented.
You insult every Black who fought for the North and all who fought in two world wars right alongside whites.You are and whites didn't die to free anyone. Insread they implemented Black Codes and Jim Crow Apartheid.
You get what you pay for. Tenements have never been nice places to live. Government owned public housing is just as bad.Naw, what I meant is that they would rent a rat-infested, unheated apartment to poor black people, and wonder why they were resented.
Well, here's the thing. The thing is, the government got out of the house building business and got into the voucher business. But the nice thing is that they have minimum standards before you can get a voucher.You get what you pay for. Tenements have never been nice places to live. Government owned public housing is just as bad.
As long as there are people who can't afford to live any place decent there will be slums and people who own them. Landlords can't afford the rent apartments at a loss.Well, here's the thing. The thing is, the government got out of the house building business and got into the voucher business. But the nice thing is that they have minimum standards before you can get a voucher.
So the slumlord is a thing of the past.
As long as there are people who can't afford to live any place decent there will be slums and people who own them. Landlords can't afford the rent apartments at a loss.
Then the taxpayers are giving them a place to live. I'm against that. The Constitution doesn't give the federal government any power to provide housing for anyone. It's just one of the many things that under the Tenth Amendment the federal government isn't allowed to do.Or you just give people vouchers... that works, too.
On slavery more generally, the PC narrative is that slavery was the fault of Westerners. Your professor will never say this outright, but just take a glance at your Afro-Studies Department courses at your college and you are very unlikely to find accounts of the North African Barbary slave traders.It seems that the concept of reparations is a problem. Apparently that is based on a lack of knowledge about history. Most just reflexively while not really knowing the iinformation that makes the case for reparations. So it appears that an education as to why reparations should be paid needs to happen and included is the information that can and will be used as part of the case.
The opposition to reparations being paid for something that happened 200 years ago is invalid, you will see why in a few seconds.
How we repair it: White Americans’ attitudes toward reparations
The United States is again at a crossroads of racial reckoning. The death of George Floyd and the 2020 summer of protests for racial justice added new urgency to ongoing discussions about the legacy of slavery and its contemporary implications for the lives of Black Americans. A key question at the root of this discussion is: how do we repair the harm – economic, physical, and psychological — caused to Black lives by slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, police brutality, and other manifestations of systemic racism?
The United States has used reparations—targeted initiatives intended to concretely repair a harm against a person or persons resulting from the collective action of others—as a means of acknowledging and atoning for its role in other atrocities, including the internment of Japanese Americans and the forced removal and destruction of six indigenous communities: the Ottawas of Michigan, the Chippewas of Wisconsin, the Seminoles of Florida, the Sioux of South Dakota, the Klamaths of Oregon, and the Alaska Natives.* However, the descendants of Africans enslaved on U.S. soil have been notably absent from this history of reparative actions. While the task of reparations seems daunting to many Americans considering the scale of injustice presented by slavery and its aftermath, we believe this is a conversation the country needs to have.
Given that white Americans gained the most from slavery and its compounded effects — a process referred to as unjust enrichment – is their widespread opposition to reparations rooted in maintaining this advantage?
How we repair it: White Americans’ attitudes toward reparations | Brookings
Ashley V. Reichelmann and Matthew O. Hunt explore white Americans’ attitudes toward reparative policies and social factors affecting their views.www.brookings.edu
1970: Richard Nixon signed into law House Resolution 471 restoring Blue Lake and surrounding area to the Taos Pueblo (New Mexico). The land had been taken by presidential order in 1906. (A History of the Indians in the United States by Angie Debo (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1984, p. 422); see also "Taos Pueblo celebrates 40th anniversary of Blue Lake's return" by Matthew van Buren, Santa Fe New Mexican, September 18, 2010.)
The payments from 1971-1988 are taken from the booklet Black Reparations Now! 40 Acres, $50 Dollars, and a Mule, + Interest by Dorothy Benton-Lewis; and borrowed from N’COBRA (National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America).
1971: Around $1 billion + 44 million acres of land: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
1974: A $10 million out-of-court settlement was reached between the U.S. government and Tuskegee victims, black men who had been unwitting subjects of a study of untreated syphilis, and who did not receive available treatments. (“The Tuskegee Timeline”, CDC, updated March 2, 2020.)
1980: $81 million: Klamaths of Oregon. ("Spending Spree" by Dylan Darling, Herald and News (Klamath Falls, OR), June 21, 2005.)
1980: $105 million: Sioux of South Dakota for seizure of their land. (United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980).)
1985: $12.3 million: Seminoles of Florida. (see Racial Justice in America: A Reference Handbook by David B. Mustard, 2002, ABC-CLIO, p. 81.)
1985: $31 million: Chippewas of Wisconsin. (see Racial Justice in America: A Reference Handbook by David B. Mustard, 2002, ABC-CLIO, p. 81.)
1986: $32 million per 1836 Treaty: Ottawas of Michigan. (see Racial Justice in America: A Reference Handbook by David B. Mustard, 2002, ABC-CLIO, p. 81.)
2016: The U.S. government reached a settlement of $492 million with 17 Native American tribes to resolve lawsuits alleging the federal government mismanaged tribal land, resources, and money. (“U.S. Government To Pay $492 Million To 17 American Indian Tribes” by Rebecca Hersher, NPR, September 27, 2016.)
2018: The Supreme Court, in a 4-4 deadlock, let stand a lower court's order to the state of Washington to make billions of dollars worth of repairs to roads, where the state had built culverts below road channels and structures in a way that prevented salmon from swimming through and reaching their spawning grounds, that had damaged the state’s salmon habitats and contributed to population loss. The case involved the Stevens Treaties, a series of agreements in 1854-55, in which tribes in Washington State gave up millions of acres of land in exchange for "the right to take fish." Implicit in the treaties, courts would later rule, was a guarantee that there would be enough fish for the tribes to harvest. Destroying the habitat reduces the population and thus violates these treaties. This decision directly affects the Swinomish Tribe. ("A Victory For A Tribe That’s Lost Its Salmon" by John Eligon, The New York Times, June 12, 2018.)
Were any of you alive when those tribes were forcibly removed or cheated?
isi.org
Well, I'm glad you're against it, but we had this discussion 60 years ago, and you didn't make a good argument then.Then the taxpayers are giving them a place to live. I'm against that. The Constitution doesn't give the federal government any power to provide housing for anyone. It's just one of the many things that under the Tenth Amendment the federal government isn't allowed to do.
I really don't think you guys understand the ecvidence that exists. These things hapened after slavery.
A New Front in Reparations: Seeking the Return of Lost Family Land
Black families lost millions in wealth when their lands were seized through eminent domain. Now some are trying to get it back.www.nytimes.com
After a stranger tried to take a Black family's land, they spent 12 years fighting to get it back
The Ely-Robinson family fought to protect the 127 acres of farmland that had been a part of their family since 1941.www.businessinsider.com
California seized land from a Black family 98 years ago. Officials just voted to return it.
Bruce's Beach was a thriving resort community for Black families when the state took the land under the guise of eminent domain in 1924. It will now return to the Bruce family.www.nbcnews.com
Opinion | Black People’s Land Was Stolen (Published 2019)
Any discussion of reparations must include how this happened, who did it, and the laws, policies and practices that allowed it.
The Great Land Robbery
The shameful story of how 1 million black families have been ripped from their farmswww.theatlantic.com
Sixty years ago the government wasn’t handing out vouchers for free housing. Some cities like NY were building public housing with discounted rents that immediately turned into crime-ridden hellholes.Well, I'm glad you're against it, but we had this discussion 60 years ago, and you didn't make a good argument then.
People should have a decent place to live and they shouldn't be exploited by slumlords.
Sixty years ago the government wasn’t handing out vouchers for free housing. Some cities like NY were building public housing with discounted rents that immediately turned into crime-ridden hellholes.
Actually, the latter part of your post isn’t true. NY built public housing around 1960, true, but initially they were largely inhabited by poor elderly Jewish and Italian (many WWI veterans) and were safe. But as they died off, the demographics changed and the buildings become horribly crime-ridden.Sixty years ago the government wasn’t handing out vouchers for free housing. Some cities like NY were building public housing with discounted rents that immediately turned into crime-ridden hellholes.
i am not sure how reparations could be paid or administered fairly, or that any amount of money would compensate the families and victims of slavery/jim crow and the other atrocities for real ( much less punative) damages. )It seems that the concept of reparations is a problem. Apparently that is based on a lack of knowledge about history. Most just reflexively while not really knowing the iinformation that makes the case for reparations. So it appears that an education as to why reparations should be paid needs to happen and included is the information that can and will be used as part of the case.
The opposition to reparations being paid for something that happened 200 years ago is invalid, you will see why in a few seconds.
How we repair it: White Americans’ attitudes toward reparations
The United States is again at a crossroads of racial reckoning. The death of George Floyd and the 2020 summer of protests for racial justice added new urgency to ongoing discussions about the legacy of slavery and its contemporary implications for the lives of Black Americans. A key question at the root of this discussion is: how do we repair the harm – economic, physical, and psychological — caused to Black lives by slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, police brutality, and other manifestations of systemic racism?
The United States has used reparations—targeted initiatives intended to concretely repair a harm against a person or persons resulting from the collective action of others—as a means of acknowledging and atoning for its role in other atrocities, including the internment of Japanese Americans and the forced removal and destruction of six indigenous communities: the Ottawas of Michigan, the Chippewas of Wisconsin, the Seminoles of Florida, the Sioux of South Dakota, the Klamaths of Oregon, and the Alaska Natives.* However, the descendants of Africans enslaved on U.S. soil have been notably absent from this history of reparative actions. While the task of reparations seems daunting to many Americans considering the scale of injustice presented by slavery and its aftermath, we believe this is a conversation the country needs to have.
Given that white Americans gained the most from slavery and its compounded effects — a process referred to as unjust enrichment – is their widespread opposition to reparations rooted in maintaining this advantage?
How we repair it: White Americans’ attitudes toward reparations | Brookings
Ashley V. Reichelmann and Matthew O. Hunt explore white Americans’ attitudes toward reparative policies and social factors affecting their views.
1970: Richard Nixon signed into law House Resolution 471 restoring Blue Lake and surrounding area to the Taos Pueblo (New Mexico). The land had been taken by presidential order in 1906. (A History of the Indians in the United States by Angie Debo (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1984, p. 422); see also "Taos Pueblo celebrates 40th anniversary of Blue Lake's return" by Matthew van Buren, Santa Fe New Mexican, September 18, 2010.)
The payments from 1971-1988 are taken from the booklet Black Reparations Now! 40 Acres, $50 Dollars, and a Mule, + Interest by Dorothy Benton-Lewis; and borrowed from N’COBRA (National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America).
1971: Around $1 billion + 44 million acres of land: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
1974: A $10 million out-of-court settlement was reached between the U.S. government and Tuskegee victims, black men who had been unwitting subjects of a study of untreated syphilis, and who did not receive available treatments. (“The Tuskegee Timeline”, CDC, updated March 2, 2020.)
1980: $81 million: Klamaths of Oregon. ("Spending Spree" by Dylan Darling, Herald and News (Klamath Falls, OR), June 21, 2005.)
1980: $105 million: Sioux of South Dakota for seizure of their land. (United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980).)
1985: $12.3 million: Seminoles of Florida. (see Racial Justice in America: A Reference Handbook by David B. Mustard, 2002, ABC-CLIO, p. 81.)
1985: $31 million: Chippewas of Wisconsin. (see Racial Justice in America: A Reference Handbook by David B. Mustard, 2002, ABC-CLIO, p. 81.)
1986: $32 million per 1836 Treaty: Ottawas of Michigan. (see Racial Justice in America: A Reference Handbook by David B. Mustard, 2002, ABC-CLIO, p. 81.)
2016: The U.S. government reached a settlement of $492 million with 17 Native American tribes to resolve lawsuits alleging the federal government mismanaged tribal land, resources, and money. (“U.S. Government To Pay $492 Million To 17 American Indian Tribes” by Rebecca Hersher, NPR, September 27, 2016.)
2018: The Supreme Court, in a 4-4 deadlock, let stand a lower court's order to the state of Washington to make billions of dollars worth of repairs to roads, where the state had built culverts below road channels and structures in a way that prevented salmon from swimming through and reaching their spawning grounds, that had damaged the state’s salmon habitats and contributed to population loss. The case involved the Stevens Treaties, a series of agreements in 1854-55, in which tribes in Washington State gave up millions of acres of land in exchange for "the right to take fish." Implicit in the treaties, courts would later rule, was a guarantee that there would be enough fish for the tribes to harvest. Destroying the habitat reduces the population and thus violates these treaties. This decision directly affects the Swinomish Tribe. ("A Victory For A Tribe That’s Lost Its Salmon" by John Eligon, The New York Times, June 12, 2018.)
Were any of you alive when those tribes were forcibly removed or cheated?
Actually, the latter part of your post isn’t true. NY built public housing around 1960, true, but initially they were largely inhabited by poor elderly Jewish and Italian (many WWI veterans) and were safe. But as they died off, the demographics changed and the buildings become horribly crime-ridden.
At least some of the public housing buildings could be vastly improved by limiting residents to age 60 and over. Then the old folks could be safe.
