Slavery Reparations is immoral

[Lewdog]

The Chinese were used as slaves to build the railroads, mine gold, as sex workers, and many other areas as well. Blacks were not the only slaves in the U.S.

Chinese have suffered and continue suffering from white racism. But they were not slaves.

"The history of Chinese Americans or the history of ethnic Chinese in the United States includes three major waves of Chinese immigration to the United States, beginning in the 19th century. Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on transcontinental railroads such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in mining, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. Industrial employers were eager for this new and cheap labor, whites were stirred to anger by the "yellow peril.” Despite provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against immigrants of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor.”

Newspapers condemned employers, and even church leaders denounced the arrival of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act prohibiting immigration from China for the following ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. The Chinese Exclusion Act is seen by some as the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States who had left China without their wives and children. Anti-miscegenation laws in many Western states also prohibited the Chinese men from marrying white women.[2] "

History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia

"The Chinese were never slaves in America-- yes, they were treated very poorly and payed minimally, but they were never brought down to the level of African slaves (unless they were kidnapped Coolies or prostitutes, but the former went mostly to South America). Interesting question though; after the Civil War when the African slaves were for the most part "free," Southern plantation owners thught that they would be able to use Chinese laborers as a replacement source of cheap labor;

however, the Chinese got wise and made the plantation owners draft contracts, and if the plantation owner was to breach his contract with the Chinese, they would sue and usually win their case.."

Were Chinese slaves in the Civil War

150 Years Ago, Chinese Railroad Workers Staged the Era's Largest Labor Strike

The Chinese railroad workers were grading and digging tunnels across a stretch of the Sierras when they decided to lay down their tools. It was the end of June 1867 and snow still covered the mountain tops.

The men, many of them from Canton in southern China, had demands: They wanted pay equal to whites, shorter workdays, and better conditions for building the country’s first transcontinental railroad.

So they put them to their employer, the Central Pacific Railroad, and a strike was on.

150 years ago, Chinese railroad workers staged the era's largest labor strike

They were slaves. They did not get paid the same wage as others and they worked dangerous jobs in which they were basically disposable. Many Chinese women are still trafficked sex slaves even today.

In fact it was so bad that the very first immigration law voted in by Congress involved Asians.

They were not slaves and that's a fact. The were laborers who were paid and as you have been shown were able to strike for higher wages. Black slaves could not do that. Now don't get it twisted because Chinese have faced the same continuing white racism we have aside from slavery.

Getting paid pennies on the dollar and being forced to live in buildings owned by their bosses, and buy food and other things from their bosses who charged high unfair prices, is slavery. They were brought to the U.S. under false pretenses and thrown into an environment that cost them more to work than what they made. They could never earn enough money to pay back the employers for the cost of bringing them to the U.S.

Blacks got zero pennies on the dollar. For 224 years. Chinese faced severe racism and oppression but they were never slaves and you don't get to redefine slavery because you want to argue with me.

You keep acting like Blacks were the only people to face oppression... and in the present time, face oppression still. I love how you skip over the times I show how you are wrong and trying to gain extra sympathy through sensationalizing things through false claims. Blacks are not the only ones to face hard times, it doesn't make it right, but you are also not doing yourself or Blacks any favors with your diatribes. This semester one of grad classes was specifically about the unfair treatment of Minorities, Women, those in poverty, and those who are not heterosexuals. Like I said a long time ago, I bet I've read just as much if not more on this subject than you have.

 

[Lewdog]

Thanks for your honest response IM2
I can see where we talk past each other if we are coming
from diverging perspectives.

All the people I know who have succeeded sustainably
did so by ABUNDANCE mentality not scarcity mentality.
The corrupt powermongers who don't last but collapse
are based on UNFAIR competition and cutthroat tactics to win. I am guessing you mean that is what you oppose, the OPPRESSIVE abuse of influence and resources to win by making other people lose.

But that's NOT what I am saying.

The people coming up from nothing did so by investing work and labor and then attracting others to invest in them so they built based on ownership. Not on handouts.

Could you and I agree that we need a way to help people gain equal ownership and empowerment, but in a good, stabilizing way. NOT in the ways you see as failed, where there is exploitation going on or oppression that cannot sustain.

Do you agree that when people are supported to gain and grow their own businesses, schools, communities, etc. that is more powerful and sustainable than if this depends on someone else funding it where it will fall apart without that outside help.

Are we talking about the same things, but from two different angles? Thanks IM2 and sorry for talking past each other on this.

the best models I've found for implementing the best of free market and the best of social support guaranteed by govt are the Cooperative programs where workers own their own management of their production as a team, and the Microlending financial training and business planning programs.

What are you talking about as the FAILED part
and what do you see as the SOLUTIONS IM2

Emily do not adopt the white racist lies. Blacks have risen from slavery to the 8-9th largest economy on earth. And we are the ones who did it facing continuing racism from whites and no handouts. Again you need to expand your study of American history to learn the complete story.

No hand outs? That's a flat out lie. I'm not saying Blacks get EXTRA hand outs compared to other people, though you have groups like the United Negro College Fund, but to say "no hand outs" is a complete lie. Lots of people get hand outs, like small business grants especially in poor neighborhoods that need new business development. Or hand outs in the forms of assistance with getting special mortgage loans with little to no money down and no closing costs. Do you think telling lies to make it sound more difficult than ever it will give you more legitimacy?

I said no handouts and that's what I mean. None of the things you mention are only for blacks. And the UNCF is not a government handout.

You didn't say government hand outs... and you certainly didn't say that Blacks didn't get hand outs (That were just for Blacks).

You said, "And we are the ones who did it facing continuing racism from whites and no handouts."

I know what I said. Whites were given things and the rules excluded anybody not white. So can the crap.

If you knew what you said, then you would have said, "Blacks have risen in society without getting EXTRA handouts that were only for Blacks."

 

[Sunsettommy]

What we'll get is a STUDY. That's what this is about.

What is the lingering effect of slavery and Jim Crow...

What can be reasonably done to mitigate those effects.

who knows. Maybe the study will say what the racists are saying...that there are no lingering effects or that there is nothing that can be done.

Yep, this is a study.

Now let me drop a small fact in this for the opposition.

Special Field Orders, No. 15 (series 1865) were military orders issued during the American Civil War, on January 16, 1865, by General William Tecumseh Sherman, commander of the Military Division of the Mississippi of the United States Army.[1] They provided for the confiscation of 400,000 acres (1,600 km2) of land along the Atlantic coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida and the dividing of it into parcels of not more than 40 acres (0.16 km2),[2] on which were to be settled approximately 18,000 formerly enslaved families and other Blacks then living in the area.

The orders were issued following Sherman's March to the Sea. They were intended to address the immediate problem of dealing with the tens of thousands of black refugees who had joined Sherman's march in search of protection and sustenance, and "to assure the harmony of action in the area of operations".[3] His intention was for the order to be a temporary measure to address an immediate problem, and not to grant permanent ownership of the land to the freedmen, although most of the recipients assumed otherwise.[4] General Sherman issued his orders four days after meeting in Savannah, Georgia with twenty local black ministers and lay leaders and with U.S. Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. Brig. Gen. Rufus Saxton, an abolitionist from Massachusetts who had previously organized the recruitment of black soldiers for the Union Army, was put in charge of implementing the orders.[5]

The orders had little concrete effect, and President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation that returned the lands to southern owners that took a loyalty oath.

Special Field Orders No. 15 - Wikipedia

The reality of this situation is that blacks were promised reparations after slavery and the President decided to break the promise.

This order is part of the Official Records of the American Civil War. It can be found in Series I — Military Operations, Volume XLVII, Part II, Pages 60–62. The volume was published in 1895.

Nice history, too bad you missed a few things:

His intention was for the order to be a temporary measure to address an immediate problem, and not to grant permanent ownership of the land to the freedmen, although most of the recipients assumed otherwise.

bolding mine

General Sherman has no such power to make a permanent solution, only the State and Federal congresses can do that, since there was NO actual Reparation LEGISLATIVE promises then, you in effect made a lie. President Johnson respected land owners rights, which is why he ended the "temporary solution" in the first place to RESTORE land ownership rights to the titled owners of the land.

Stop insulting todays blacks who are not victims of something that ended by law 135 years ago and then bolstered 55 years ago when it became clear Democrats needed a hard kick in their ass to respect black 135 year old rights.

 

[Godboy]

Slavery Reparations is immoral and unreasonable

Cory Booker introduces Senate bill on slavery reparations

Cory Booker was introduced a Senate bill on slavery reparations. There are also other 2020 Democrat candidates who are talking about reparations. Booker, Harris, Warren and Sanders are all talking about Slavery Reparation.

Candidates edge toward discussing slavery reparations

Not all people of color in the United States are descended from slaves, and not all are impoverished. It’s also expensive and would cost the U.S. government $6 trillion to as much as $14 trillion. University of Connecticut professor Thomas Craemer arrived at that range by calculating the value of slave labor at prevailing wages from 1776 to 1865, compounded at 3 percent annually.

Slavery Reparations is immoral because it would punish innocent people and it would reward non-victims. There are no living slaves and there are no living slave owners. It would be like punishing a person for something that their friend did or a sibling did. It’s immoral to punish people for something that they had no control of. The Dem candidates are not just pandering for votes, they are trying to buy votes with your money. The constitution treats people as individuals, not as groups.

For starters.

Its a non-starter.

 

[jc456]

What we'll get is a STUDY. That's what this is about.

What is the lingering effect of slavery and Jim Crow...

What can be reasonably done to mitigate those effects.

who knows. Maybe the study will say what the racists are saying...that there are no lingering effects or that there is nothing that can be done.

Yep, this is a study.

Now let me drop a small fact in this for the opposition.

Special Field Orders, No. 15 (series 1865) were military orders issued during the American Civil War, on January 16, 1865, by General William Tecumseh Sherman, commander of the Military Division of the Mississippi of the United States Army.[1] They provided for the confiscation of 400,000 acres (1,600 km2) of land along the Atlantic coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida and the dividing of it into parcels of not more than 40 acres (0.16 km2),[2] on which were to be settled approximately 18,000 formerly enslaved families and other Blacks then living in the area.

The orders were issued following Sherman's March to the Sea. They were intended to address the immediate problem of dealing with the tens of thousands of black refugees who had joined Sherman's march in search of protection and sustenance, and "to assure the harmony of action in the area of operations".[3] His intention was for the order to be a temporary measure to address an immediate problem, and not to grant permanent ownership of the land to the freedmen, although most of the recipients assumed otherwise.[4] General Sherman issued his orders four days after meeting in Savannah, Georgia with twenty local black ministers and lay leaders and with U.S. Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. Brig. Gen. Rufus Saxton, an abolitionist from Massachusetts who had previously organized the recruitment of black soldiers for the Union Army, was put in charge of implementing the orders.[5]

The orders had little concrete effect, and President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation that returned the lands to southern owners that took a loyalty oath.

Special Field Orders No. 15 - Wikipedia

The reality of this situation is that blacks were promised reparations after slavery and the President decided to break the promise.

This order is part of the Official Records of the American Civil War. It can be found in Series I — Military Operations, Volume XLVII, Part II, Pages 60–62. The volume was published in 1895.

Nice history, too bad you missed a few things:

His intention was for the order to be a temporary measure to address an immediate problem, and not to grant permanent ownership of the land to the freedmen, although most of the recipients assumed otherwise.

bolding mine

General Sherman has no such power to make a permanent solution, only the State and Federal congresses can do that, since there was NO actual Reparation LEGISLATIVE promises then, you in effect made a lie. President Johnson respected land owners rights, which is why he ended the "temporary solution" in the first place to RESTORE land ownership rights to the titled owners of the land.

Stop insulting todays blacks who are not victims of something that ended by law 135 years ago and then bolstered 55 years ago when it became clear Democrats needed a hard kick in their ass to respect black 135 year old rights.

Insulting them is extremely accurate

 

[Lesh]

What we'll get is a STUDY. That's what this is about.

What is the lingering effect of slavery and Jim Crow...

What can be reasonably done to mitigate those effects.

who knows. Maybe the study will say what the racists are saying...that there are no lingering effects or that there is nothing that can be done.

Yep, this is a study.

Now let me drop a small fact in this for the opposition.

Special Field Orders, No. 15 (series 1865) were military orders issued during the American Civil War, on January 16, 1865, by General William Tecumseh Sherman, commander of the Military Division of the Mississippi of the United States Army.[1] They provided for the confiscation of 400,000 acres (1,600 km2) of land along the Atlantic coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida and the dividing of it into parcels of not more than 40 acres (0.16 km2),[2] on which were to be settled approximately 18,000 formerly enslaved families and other Blacks then living in the area.

The orders were issued following Sherman's March to the Sea. They were intended to address the immediate problem of dealing with the tens of thousands of black refugees who had joined Sherman's march in search of protection and sustenance, and "to assure the harmony of action in the area of operations".[3] His intention was for the order to be a temporary measure to address an immediate problem, and not to grant permanent ownership of the land to the freedmen, although most of the recipients assumed otherwise.[4] General Sherman issued his orders four days after meeting in Savannah, Georgia with twenty local black ministers and lay leaders and with U.S. Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. Brig. Gen. Rufus Saxton, an abolitionist from Massachusetts who had previously organized the recruitment of black soldiers for the Union Army, was put in charge of implementing the orders.[5]

The orders had little concrete effect, and President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation that returned the lands to southern owners that took a loyalty oath.

Special Field Orders No. 15 - Wikipedia

The reality of this situation is that blacks were promised reparations after slavery and the President decided to break the promise.

This order is part of the Official Records of the American Civil War. It can be found in Series I — Military Operations, Volume XLVII, Part II, Pages 60–62. The volume was published in 1895.

Nice history, too bad you missed a few things:

His intention was for the order to be a temporary measure to address an immediate problem, and not to grant permanent ownership of the land to the freedmen, although most of the recipients assumed otherwise.

bolding mine

General Sherman has no such power to make a permanent solution, only the State and Federal congresses can do that, since there was NO actual Reparation LEGISLATIVE promises then, you in effect made a lie. President Johnson respected land owners rights, which is why he ended the "temporary solution" in the first place to RESTORE land ownership rights to the titled owners of the land.

Stop insulting todays blacks who are not victims of something that ended by law 135 years ago and then bolstered 55 years ago when it became clear Democrats needed a hard kick in their ass to respect black 135 year old rights.

Trying to pretend that there was a level playing field racially from the end of the Civil War (and ignoring 100 years of Jim Crow) is dishonest at best

 

[IM2]

What we'll get is a STUDY. That's what this is about.

What is the lingering effect of slavery and Jim Crow...

What can be reasonably done to mitigate those effects.

who knows. Maybe the study will say what the racists are saying...that there are no lingering effects or that there is nothing that can be done.

Yep, this is a study.

Now let me drop a small fact in this for the opposition.

Special Field Orders, No. 15 (series 1865) were military orders issued during the American Civil War, on January 16, 1865, by General William Tecumseh Sherman, commander of the Military Division of the Mississippi of the United States Army.[1] They provided for the confiscation of 400,000 acres (1,600 km2) of land along the Atlantic coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida and the dividing of it into parcels of not more than 40 acres (0.16 km2),[2] on which were to be settled approximately 18,000 formerly enslaved families and other Blacks then living in the area.

The orders were issued following Sherman's March to the Sea. They were intended to address the immediate problem of dealing with the tens of thousands of black refugees who had joined Sherman's march in search of protection and sustenance, and "to assure the harmony of action in the area of operations".[3] His intention was for the order to be a temporary measure to address an immediate problem, and not to grant permanent ownership of the land to the freedmen, although most of the recipients assumed otherwise.[4] General Sherman issued his orders four days after meeting in Savannah, Georgia with twenty local black ministers and lay leaders and with U.S. Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. Brig. Gen. Rufus Saxton, an abolitionist from Massachusetts who had previously organized the recruitment of black soldiers for the Union Army, was put in charge of implementing the orders.[5]

The orders had little concrete effect, and President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation that returned the lands to southern owners that took a loyalty oath.

Special Field Orders No. 15 - Wikipedia

The reality of this situation is that blacks were promised reparations after slavery and the President decided to break the promise.

This order is part of the Official Records of the American Civil War. It can be found in Series I — Military Operations, Volume XLVII, Part II, Pages 60–62. The volume was published in 1895.

Nice history, too bad you missed a few things:

His intention was for the order to be a temporary measure to address an immediate problem, and not to grant permanent ownership of the land to the freedmen, although most of the recipients assumed otherwise.

bolding mine

General Sherman has no such power to make a permanent solution, only the State and Federal congresses can do that, since there was NO actual Reparation LEGISLATIVE promises then, you in effect made a lie. President Johnson respected land owners rights, which is why he ended the "temporary solution" in the first place to RESTORE land ownership rights to the titled owners of the land.

Stop insulting todays blacks who are not victims of something that ended by law 135 years ago and then bolstered 55 years ago when it became clear Democrats needed a hard kick in their ass to respect black 135 year old rights.

Since white descendants of confederate soldiers can get paid for a war they weren't alive to see and never fought from 1958 until at least 2017, it's best that you don't try arguing against reparations for blacks based on the excuse of blacks weren't there 150 years ago.

 

[IM2]

Slavery Reparations is immoral and unreasonable

Cory Booker introduces Senate bill on slavery reparations

Cory Booker was introduced a Senate bill on slavery reparations. There are also other 2020 Democrat candidates who are talking about reparations. Booker, Harris, Warren and Sanders are all talking about Slavery Reparation.

Candidates edge toward discussing slavery reparations

Not all people of color in the United States are descended from slaves, and not all are impoverished. It’s also expensive and would cost the U.S. government $6 trillion to as much as $14 trillion. University of Connecticut professor Thomas Craemer arrived at that range by calculating the value of slave labor at prevailing wages from 1776 to 1865, compounded at 3 percent annually.

Slavery Reparations is immoral because it would punish innocent people and it would reward non-victims. There are no living slaves and there are no living slave owners. It would be like punishing a person for something that their friend did or a sibling did. It’s immoral to punish people for something that they had no control of. The Dem candidates are not just pandering for votes, they are trying to buy votes with your money. The constitution treats people as individuals, not as groups.

For starters.

Its a non-starter.

That can't be true since it started.

 

[Zorro!]

What we'll get is a STUDY. That's what this is about.

What is the lingering effect of slavery and Jim Crow...

What can be reasonably done to mitigate those effects.

who knows. Maybe the study will say what the racists are saying...that there are no lingering effects or that there is nothing that can be done.

Yep, this is a study.

Now let me drop a small fact in this for the opposition.

Special Field Orders, No. 15 (series 1865) were military orders issued during the American Civil War, on January 16, 1865, by General William Tecumseh Sherman, commander of the Military Division of the Mississippi of the United States Army.[1] They provided for the confiscation of 400,000 acres (1,600 km2) of land along the Atlantic coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida and the dividing of it into parcels of not more than 40 acres (0.16 km2),[2] on which were to be settled approximately 18,000 formerly enslaved families and other Blacks then living in the area.

The orders were issued following Sherman's March to the Sea. They were intended to address the immediate problem of dealing with the tens of thousands of black refugees who had joined Sherman's march in search of protection and sustenance, and "to assure the harmony of action in the area of operations".[3] His intention was for the order to be a temporary measure to address an immediate problem, and not to grant permanent ownership of the land to the freedmen, although most of the recipients assumed otherwise.[4] General Sherman issued his orders four days after meeting in Savannah, Georgia with twenty local black ministers and lay leaders and with U.S. Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. Brig. Gen. Rufus Saxton, an abolitionist from Massachusetts who had previously organized the recruitment of black soldiers for the Union Army, was put in charge of implementing the orders.[5]

The orders had little concrete effect, and President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation that returned the lands to southern owners that took a loyalty oath.

Special Field Orders No. 15 - Wikipedia

The reality of this situation is that blacks were promised reparations after slavery and the President decided to break the promise.

This order is part of the Official Records of the American Civil War. It can be found in Series I — Military Operations, Volume XLVII, Part II, Pages 60–62. The volume was published in 1895.

Nice history, too bad you missed a few things:

His intention was for the order to be a temporary measure to address an immediate problem, and not to grant permanent ownership of the land to the freedmen, although most of the recipients assumed otherwise.

bolding mine

General Sherman has no such power to make a permanent solution, only the State and Federal congresses can do that, since there was NO actual Reparation LEGISLATIVE promises then, you in effect made a lie. President Johnson respected land owners rights, which is why he ended the "temporary solution" in the first place to RESTORE land ownership rights to the titled owners of the land.

Stop insulting todays blacks who are not victims of something that ended by law 135 years ago and then bolstered 55 years ago when it became clear Democrats needed a hard kick in their ass to respect black 135 year old rights.

Trying to pretend that there was a level playing field racially from the end of the Civil War (and ignoring 100 years of Jim Crow) is dishonest at best

Who holds those positions?

 

[WEATHER53]

No pay no body 150 years ago

 

[IM2]

Chinese have suffered and continue suffering from white racism. But they were not slaves.

"The history of Chinese Americans or the history of ethnic Chinese in the United States includes three major waves of Chinese immigration to the United States, beginning in the 19th century. Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked as laborers, particularly on transcontinental railroads such as the Central Pacific Railroad. They also worked as laborers in mining, and suffered racial discrimination at every level of society. Industrial employers were eager for this new and cheap labor, whites were stirred to anger by the "yellow peril.” Despite provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, political and labor organizations rallied against immigrants of what they regarded as a degraded race and "cheap Chinese labor.”

Newspapers condemned employers, and even church leaders denounced the arrival of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only. So hostile was the opposition that in 1882 the United States Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act prohibiting immigration from China for the following ten years. This law was then extended by the Geary Act in 1892. The Chinese Exclusion Act is seen by some as the only U.S. law ever to prevent immigration and naturalization on the basis of race.[1] These laws not only prevented new immigration but also the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the United States who had left China without their wives and children. Anti-miscegenation laws in many Western states also prohibited the Chinese men from marrying white women.[2] "

History of Chinese Americans - Wikipedia

"The Chinese were never slaves in America-- yes, they were treated very poorly and payed minimally, but they were never brought down to the level of African slaves (unless they were kidnapped Coolies or prostitutes, but the former went mostly to South America). Interesting question though; after the Civil War when the African slaves were for the most part "free," Southern plantation owners thught that they would be able to use Chinese laborers as a replacement source of cheap labor;

however, the Chinese got wise and made the plantation owners draft contracts, and if the plantation owner was to breach his contract with the Chinese, they would sue and usually win their case.."

Were Chinese slaves in the Civil War

150 Years Ago, Chinese Railroad Workers Staged the Era's Largest Labor Strike

The Chinese railroad workers were grading and digging tunnels across a stretch of the Sierras when they decided to lay down their tools. It was the end of June 1867 and snow still covered the mountain tops.

The men, many of them from Canton in southern China, had demands: They wanted pay equal to whites, shorter workdays, and better conditions for building the country’s first transcontinental railroad.

So they put them to their employer, the Central Pacific Railroad, and a strike was on.

150 years ago, Chinese railroad workers staged the era's largest labor strike

They were slaves. They did not get paid the same wage as others and they worked dangerous jobs in which they were basically disposable. Many Chinese women are still trafficked sex slaves even today.

In fact it was so bad that the very first immigration law voted in by Congress involved Asians.

They were not slaves and that's a fact. The were laborers who were paid and as you have been shown were able to strike for higher wages. Black slaves could not do that. Now don't get it twisted because Chinese have faced the same continuing white racism we have aside from slavery.

Getting paid pennies on the dollar and being forced to live in buildings owned by their bosses, and buy food and other things from their bosses who charged high unfair prices, is slavery. They were brought to the U.S. under false pretenses and thrown into an environment that cost them more to work than what they made. They could never earn enough money to pay back the employers for the cost of bringing them to the U.S.

Blacks got zero pennies on the dollar. For 224 years. Chinese faced severe racism and oppression but they were never slaves and you don't get to redefine slavery because you want to argue with me.

You keep acting like Blacks were the only people to face oppression... and in the present time, face oppression still. I love how you skip over the times I show how you are wrong and trying to gain extra sympathy through sensationalizing things through false claims. Blacks are not the only ones to face hard times, it doesn't make it right, but you are also not doing yourself or Blacks any favors with your diatribes. This semester one of grad classes was specifically about the unfair treatment of Minorities, Women, those in poverty, and those who are not heterosexuals. Like I said a long time ago, I bet I've read just as much if not more on this subject than you have.

You have not shown how I was wrong and nobody has faced what blacks have. We are not talking about simply facing hard times. I doubt if you know more than I do because I have not just read about it. So like I said:

Since white descendants of confederate soldiers can get paid for a war they weren't alive to see and never fought from 1958 until at least 2017, it's best that you don't try arguing against reparations for blacks based on the excuse of blacks weren't there 150 years ago. And then there is this:


Now let us understand how those who claim today to have suffered like blacks did not.

“Here it is important to understand how, exactly, Americans ‘become white’. The history of Polish-Americans is an illuminating example. Upon arriving in the U.S. en masse in the late 19th and early 20th century, Poles endured discrimination based on their appearance, religion and culture. In 1903, the New England Magazine decried the Poles’ “expressionless Slavic faces” and “stunted figures” as well as their inherent “ignorance” and “propensity to violence”. Working for terrible wages, Polish workers were renamed things like “Thomas Jefferson” by their bigoted Anglo-Saxon bosses who refused to utter Polish names.

The Poles, in other words, were not considered white. Far from it: they were considered a mysterious menace that should be expelled. When Polish-American Leon Czolgosz killed President William McKinley in 1901, all Poles were deemed potential violent anarchists. “All people are mourning, and it is caused by a maniac who is of our nationality,” a Polish-American newspaper wrote, pressured to apologize for their own people. The collective blame of Poles for terrorism bears great similarity to how Muslims (both in the U.S. and Europe) are collectively blamed today.

But then something changed. In 1919, Irish gangs in blackface attacked Polish neighborhoods in Chicago in an attempt to convince Poles, and other Eastern European groups, that they, too, were “white” and should join them in the fight against blacks. As historian David R. Roediger recalls, “Poles argued that the riot was a conflict between blacks and whites, with Poles abstaining because they belonged to neither group.” But the Irish gangs considered whiteness, as is often the case in America, as anti-blackness. And as in the early 20th century Chicago experienced an influx not only of white immigrants from Europe, but blacks from the South, white groups who felt threatened by black arrivals decided that it would be politically advantageous if the Poles were considered white as well.

With that new white identity came the ability to practice the discrimination they had once endured.

Over time, the strategy of positioning Poles as “white” against a dark-skinned “other” was successful. Poles came to consider themselves white, and more importantly, they came to be considered white by their fellow Americans, as did Italians, Greeks, Jews, Russians, and others from Southern and Eastern Europe, all of whom held an ambivalent racial status in U.S. society. Also, intermarriage between white ethnic groups led some to embrace a broader white identity.”

Bu-Bu-But blacks aren't the only ones....

How the Irish Became White
Art McDonald, Ph.D.

"Irish and Africans Americans had lots in common and lots of contact during this period; they lived side by side and shared work spaces. In the early years of immigration the poor Irish and blacks were thrown together, very much part of the same class competing for the same jobs. In the census of 1850, the term mulatto appears for the first time due primarily to inter-marriage between Irish and African Americans. The Irish were often referred to as "Negroes turned inside out and Negroes as smoked Irish." A famous quip of the time attributed to a black man went something like this: "My master is a great tyrant, he treats me like a common Irishman." Free blacks and Irish were viewed by the Nativists as related, somehow similar, performing the same tasks in society. It was felt that if amalgamation between the races was to happen, it would happen between Irish and blacks. But, ultimately, the Irish made the decision to embrace whiteness, thus becoming part of the system which dominated and oppressed blacks. Although it contradicted their experience back home, it meant freedom here since blackness meant slavery.

An article by a black writer in an 1860 edition of the Liberator explained how the Irish ultimately attained their objectives: "Fifteen or twenty years ago, a Catholic priest in Philadelphia said to the Irish people in that city, 'You are all poor, and chiefly laborers, the blacks are poor laborers; many of the native whites are laborers; now, if you wish to succeed, you must do everything that they do, no matter how degrading, and do it for less than they can afford to do it for.' The Irish adopted this plan; they lived on less than the Americans could live upon, and worked for less, and the result is, that nearly all the menial employments are monopolized by the Irish, who now get as good prices as anybody. There were other avenues open to American white men, and though they have suffered much, the chief support of the Irish has come from the places from which we have been crowded."

Once the Irish secured themselves in those jobs, they made sure blacks were kept out. They realized that as long as they continued to work alongside blacks, they would be considered no different. Later, as Irish became prominent in the labor movement, African Americans were excluded from participation. In fact, one of the primary themes of How the Irish Became White is the way in which left labor historians, such as the highly acclaimed Herbert Gutman, have not paid sufficient attention to the problem of race in the development of the labor movement.

And so, we have the tragic story of how one oppressed "race," Irish Catholics, learned how to collaborate in the oppression of another "race," Africans in America, in order to secure their place in the white republic."

How the Irish Became White

"Despite the pervasiveness of sexism a century ago and the outsize role of men in the KKK, women in the 1920s Klan had power. This wasn’t “soft” power. Women didn’t merely sew Klan robes or bake casseroles for Klan picnics; they wielded actual power that shaped the societies in which they lived. Though they were staunch defenders of traditional domesticity, they were also active in social welfare movements and local and state politics. Under the leadership of Daisy Douglas Barr and several other women, they formed their own autonomous arm of the KKK, the half-million-strong WKKK, which lobbied for the creation of racist immigration quotas, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws. But as the sociologist Blee explains, the WKKK also attracted members by billing itself as a social group. Drawing from the church-supper tradition, they held picnics, fundraisers, and cross burnings where they spread the gospel of the “eternal supremacy” of the white race. Though the men’s Klan was larger, the women’s KKK was better at public relations, and left an indelible mark on the organization by cloaking their white supremacist mission behind a facade of social welfare — a move that would become a hallmark of the modern-day right.

Women weren’t relegated to the ladies’ team. Arguably the most powerful person in the 1920s KKK — that is, the one comprised of white men — was a woman. Elizabeth Tyler headed up the Klan’s publicity team, though many, including participants in a congressional investigation in 1920, suspected that she was the true leader of the Klan. The authors of a report on the matter simply stated, “In this woman beats the real heart of the Ku Klux Klan today.”

No, talking about women’s role in white supremacy is NOT blaming women



#WhiteGirlsDoItBetter: Why White Women Remain One of Racism’s Most Slept On Weapons

Christopher Emanuel is a 25-year-old Black South Carolinian. Syracuse law professor, Kevin Noble Maillard, crafted a brilliant report on the gauntlet of legal obstacles Emanuel overcame to be recognized as the father and sole custodian of his daughter, Skylar. Emanuel was deliberately excluded from his child’s birth, falsely branded a shiftless sperm-donor disinterested in and ill-equipped for fatherhood, and nearly stripped of his paternal rights.

This Black dad’s nemesis wasn’t his state’s recently banished Confederate flag. It was his daughter’s white mother and white grandmother, who ultimately lost their parental rights while a South Carolina judge condemned their campaign of treachery and racism to steal a Black child.

This is not our conventional notion of white supremacy. The enemy of Black people is habitually reduced to “the man.”

However, there would be no racist white man, without a racist white woman.

From Jim Crow legislation, to Black castration, editor and journalist, Chloe Angyal, correctly acknowledged that blubbering white women have prompted untold incidents of white terror. But her assessment is incomplete. White women are equally proficient as weeping victims of alleged “negro” mischief or aggressive, violent ambassadors of white power. Contrary to the rubric of white patriarchy, white women are equal co-conspirators in the devaluation of Black life.

#WhiteGirlsDoItBetter: Why White Women Remain One of Racism's Most Slept On Weapons

Racism in Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender America

Racism in the US gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender "community" is nothing new. In the 1950s, African American gays and lesbians were not welcome in white-run gay bars and clubs. In the PC 90s, however, this topic of racism within an oppressed minority has been blithely avoided in mainstream glbt dialogues.

Racism in Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender America - ColorQ Articles Etc

 

[IM2]

No pay no body 150 years ago

But you have already done that.

Since white descendants of confederate soldiers can get paid for a war they weren't alive to see and never fought from 1958 until at least 2017, it's best that you don't try arguing against reparations for blacks based on the excuse of blacks weren't there 150 years ago.

 

[Redfish]

What we'll get is a STUDY. That's what this is about.

What is the lingering effect of slavery and Jim Crow...

What can be reasonably done to mitigate those effects.

who knows. Maybe the study will say what the racists are saying...that there are no lingering effects or that there is nothing that can be done.

Yep, this is a study.

Now let me drop a small fact in this for the opposition.

Special Field Orders, No. 15 (series 1865) were military orders issued during the American Civil War, on January 16, 1865, by General William Tecumseh Sherman, commander of the Military Division of the Mississippi of the United States Army.[1] They provided for the confiscation of 400,000 acres (1,600 km2) of land along the Atlantic coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida and the dividing of it into parcels of not more than 40 acres (0.16 km2),[2] on which were to be settled approximately 18,000 formerly enslaved families and other Blacks then living in the area.

The orders were issued following Sherman's March to the Sea. They were intended to address the immediate problem of dealing with the tens of thousands of black refugees who had joined Sherman's march in search of protection and sustenance, and "to assure the harmony of action in the area of operations".[3] His intention was for the order to be a temporary measure to address an immediate problem, and not to grant permanent ownership of the land to the freedmen, although most of the recipients assumed otherwise.[4] General Sherman issued his orders four days after meeting in Savannah, Georgia with twenty local black ministers and lay leaders and with U.S. Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. Brig. Gen. Rufus Saxton, an abolitionist from Massachusetts who had previously organized the recruitment of black soldiers for the Union Army, was put in charge of implementing the orders.[5]

The orders had little concrete effect, and President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation that returned the lands to southern owners that took a loyalty oath.

Special Field Orders No. 15 - Wikipedia

The reality of this situation is that blacks were promised reparations after slavery and the President decided to break the promise.

This order is part of the Official Records of the American Civil War. It can be found in Series I — Military Operations, Volume XLVII, Part II, Pages 60–62. The volume was published in 1895.

Nice history, too bad you missed a few things:

His intention was for the order to be a temporary measure to address an immediate problem, and not to grant permanent ownership of the land to the freedmen, although most of the recipients assumed otherwise.

bolding mine

General Sherman has no such power to make a permanent solution, only the State and Federal congresses can do that, since there was NO actual Reparation LEGISLATIVE promises then, you in effect made a lie. President Johnson respected land owners rights, which is why he ended the "temporary solution" in the first place to RESTORE land ownership rights to the titled owners of the land.

Stop insulting todays blacks who are not victims of something that ended by law 135 years ago and then bolstered 55 years ago when it became clear Democrats needed a hard kick in their ass to respect black 135 year old rights.

Trying to pretend that there was a level playing field racially from the end of the Civil War (and ignoring 100 years of Jim Crow) is dishonest at best

there is not now, never has been, or never will be a level playing field. Some will always have more talent, more skills, more brains, more money, more drive, more ambition, more strength, etc.

There is no way to completely level the playing field. Its a fantasy.

 

[Redfish]

No pay no body 150 years ago

But you have already done that.

Since white descendants of confederate soldiers can get paid for a war they weren't alive to see and never fought from 1958 until at least 2017, it's best that you don't try arguing against reparations for blacks based on the excuse of blacks weren't there 150 years ago.

so who gets these reparations? Does Oprah get them? Lebron? Whoopi? Obama?, Halley Berry? Cosby? Cameltoe Harris?

How about the white Irish slaves? How about the black slaves of black slave owners?

How about Jamaicans? Haitians?

How about the desendents of Japanese who were imprisoned during WW2?

This whole thing is but another stupid dem attempt to buy votes with OUR money, fuggem!

 

[G.T.]

It would be karma...but karma charged to the wrong people.

 

[Redfish]

It would be karma...but karma charged to the wrong people.

Karma would be if US blacks got reparations from the african blacks who enslaved and sold their ancestors.

 

[G.T.]

It would be karma...but karma charged to the wrong people.

Karma would be if US blacks got reparations from the african blacks who enslaved and sold their ancestors.

Them, and the buyers. And anyone who inherited them and didnt release.

But surely as the sun is hot.....not from ME.

 

[Zorro!]

They were slaves. They did not get paid the same wage as others and they worked dangerous jobs in which they were basically disposable. Many Chinese women are still trafficked sex slaves even today.

In fact it was so bad that the very first immigration law voted in by Congress involved Asians.

They were not slaves and that's a fact. The were laborers who were paid and as you have been shown were able to strike for higher wages. Black slaves could not do that. Now don't get it twisted because Chinese have faced the same continuing white racism we have aside from slavery.

Getting paid pennies on the dollar and being forced to live in buildings owned by their bosses, and buy food and other things from their bosses who charged high unfair prices, is slavery. They were brought to the U.S. under false pretenses and thrown into an environment that cost them more to work than what they made. They could never earn enough money to pay back the employers for the cost of bringing them to the U.S.

Blacks got zero pennies on the dollar. For 224 years. Chinese faced severe racism and oppression but they were never slaves and you don't get to redefine slavery because you want to argue with me.

You keep acting like Blacks were the only people to face oppression... and in the present time, face oppression still. I love how you skip over the times I show how you are wrong and trying to gain extra sympathy through sensationalizing things through false claims. Blacks are not the only ones to face hard times, it doesn't make it right, but you are also not doing yourself or Blacks any favors with your diatribes. This semester one of grad classes was specifically about the unfair treatment of Minorities, Women, those in poverty, and those who are not heterosexuals. Like I said a long time ago, I bet I've read just as much if not more on this subject than you have.

You have not shown how I was wrong and nobody has faced what blacks have. We are not talking about simply facing hard times. I doubt if you know more than I do because I have not just read about it. So like I said:

Since white descendants of confederate soldiers can get paid for a war they weren't alive to see and never fought from 1958 until at least 2017, it's best that you don't try arguing against reparations for blacks based on the excuse of blacks weren't there 150 years ago. And then there is this:


Now let us understand how those who claim today to have suffered like blacks did not.

“Here it is important to understand how, exactly, Americans ‘become white’. The history of Polish-Americans is an illuminating example. Upon arriving in the U.S. en masse in the late 19th and early 20th century, Poles endured discrimination based on their appearance, religion and culture. In 1903, the New England Magazine decried the Poles’ “expressionless Slavic faces” and “stunted figures” as well as their inherent “ignorance” and “propensity to violence”. Working for terrible wages, Polish workers were renamed things like “Thomas Jefferson” by their bigoted Anglo-Saxon bosses who refused to utter Polish names.

The Poles, in other words, were not considered white. Far from it: they were considered a mysterious menace that should be expelled. When Polish-American Leon Czolgosz killed President William McKinley in 1901, all Poles were deemed potential violent anarchists. “All people are mourning, and it is caused by a maniac who is of our nationality,” a Polish-American newspaper wrote, pressured to apologize for their own people. The collective blame of Poles for terrorism bears great similarity to how Muslims (both in the U.S. and Europe) are collectively blamed today.

But then something changed. In 1919, Irish gangs in blackface attacked Polish neighborhoods in Chicago in an attempt to convince Poles, and other Eastern European groups, that they, too, were “white” and should join them in the fight against blacks. As historian David R. Roediger recalls, “Poles argued that the riot was a conflict between blacks and whites, with Poles abstaining because they belonged to neither group.” But the Irish gangs considered whiteness, as is often the case in America, as anti-blackness. And as in the early 20th century Chicago experienced an influx not only of white immigrants from Europe, but blacks from the South, white groups who felt threatened by black arrivals decided that it would be politically advantageous if the Poles were considered white as well.

With that new white identity came the ability to practice the discrimination they had once endured.

Over time, the strategy of positioning Poles as “white” against a dark-skinned “other” was successful. Poles came to consider themselves white, and more importantly, they came to be considered white by their fellow Americans, as did Italians, Greeks, Jews, Russians, and others from Southern and Eastern Europe, all of whom held an ambivalent racial status in U.S. society. Also, intermarriage between white ethnic groups led some to embrace a broader white identity.”

Bu-Bu-But blacks aren't the only ones....

How the Irish Became White
Art McDonald, Ph.D.

"Irish and Africans Americans had lots in common and lots of contact during this period; they lived side by side and shared work spaces. In the early years of immigration the poor Irish and blacks were thrown together, very much part of the same class competing for the same jobs. In the census of 1850, the term mulatto appears for the first time due primarily to inter-marriage between Irish and African Americans. The Irish were often referred to as "Negroes turned inside out and Negroes as smoked Irish." A famous quip of the time attributed to a black man went something like this: "My master is a great tyrant, he treats me like a common Irishman." Free blacks and Irish were viewed by the Nativists as related, somehow similar, performing the same tasks in society. It was felt that if amalgamation between the races was to happen, it would happen between Irish and blacks. But, ultimately, the Irish made the decision to embrace whiteness, thus becoming part of the system which dominated and oppressed blacks. Although it contradicted their experience back home, it meant freedom here since blackness meant slavery.

An article by a black writer in an 1860 edition of the Liberator explained how the Irish ultimately attained their objectives: "Fifteen or twenty years ago, a Catholic priest in Philadelphia said to the Irish people in that city, 'You are all poor, and chiefly laborers, the blacks are poor laborers; many of the native whites are laborers; now, if you wish to succeed, you must do everything that they do, no matter how degrading, and do it for less than they can afford to do it for.' The Irish adopted this plan; they lived on less than the Americans could live upon, and worked for less, and the result is, that nearly all the menial employments are monopolized by the Irish, who now get as good prices as anybody. There were other avenues open to American white men, and though they have suffered much, the chief support of the Irish has come from the places from which we have been crowded."

Once the Irish secured themselves in those jobs, they made sure blacks were kept out. They realized that as long as they continued to work alongside blacks, they would be considered no different. Later, as Irish became prominent in the labor movement, African Americans were excluded from participation. In fact, one of the primary themes of How the Irish Became White is the way in which left labor historians, such as the highly acclaimed Herbert Gutman, have not paid sufficient attention to the problem of race in the development of the labor movement.

And so, we have the tragic story of how one oppressed "race," Irish Catholics, learned how to collaborate in the oppression of another "race," Africans in America, in order to secure their place in the white republic."

How the Irish Became White

"Despite the pervasiveness of sexism a century ago and the outsize role of men in the KKK, women in the 1920s Klan had power. This wasn’t “soft” power. Women didn’t merely sew Klan robes or bake casseroles for Klan picnics; they wielded actual power that shaped the societies in which they lived. Though they were staunch defenders of traditional domesticity, they were also active in social welfare movements and local and state politics. Under the leadership of Daisy Douglas Barr and several other women, they formed their own autonomous arm of the KKK, the half-million-strong WKKK, which lobbied for the creation of racist immigration quotas, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws. But as the sociologist Blee explains, the WKKK also attracted members by billing itself as a social group. Drawing from the church-supper tradition, they held picnics, fundraisers, and cross burnings where they spread the gospel of the “eternal supremacy” of the white race. Though the men’s Klan was larger, the women’s KKK was better at public relations, and left an indelible mark on the organization by cloaking their white supremacist mission behind a facade of social welfare — a move that would become a hallmark of the modern-day right.

Women weren’t relegated to the ladies’ team. Arguably the most powerful person in the 1920s KKK — that is, the one comprised of white men — was a woman. Elizabeth Tyler headed up the Klan’s publicity team, though many, including participants in a congressional investigation in 1920, suspected that she was the true leader of the Klan. The authors of a report on the matter simply stated, “In this woman beats the real heart of the Ku Klux Klan today.”

No, talking about women’s role in white supremacy is NOT blaming women



#WhiteGirlsDoItBetter: Why White Women Remain One of Racism’s Most Slept On Weapons

Christopher Emanuel is a 25-year-old Black South Carolinian. Syracuse law professor, Kevin Noble Maillard, crafted a brilliant report on the gauntlet of legal obstacles Emanuel overcame to be recognized as the father and sole custodian of his daughter, Skylar. Emanuel was deliberately excluded from his child’s birth, falsely branded a shiftless sperm-donor disinterested in and ill-equipped for fatherhood, and nearly stripped of his paternal rights.

This Black dad’s nemesis wasn’t his state’s recently banished Confederate flag. It was his daughter’s white mother and white grandmother, who ultimately lost their parental rights while a South Carolina judge condemned their campaign of treachery and racism to steal a Black child.

This is not our conventional notion of white supremacy. The enemy of Black people is habitually reduced to “the man.”

However, there would be no racist white man, without a racist white woman.

From Jim Crow legislation, to Black castration, editor and journalist, Chloe Angyal, correctly acknowledged that blubbering white women have prompted untold incidents of white terror. But her assessment is incomplete. White women are equally proficient as weeping victims of alleged “negro” mischief or aggressive, violent ambassadors of white power. Contrary to the rubric of white patriarchy, white women are equal co-conspirators in the devaluation of Black life.

#WhiteGirlsDoItBetter: Why White Women Remain One of Racism's Most Slept On Weapons

Racism in Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender America

Racism in the US gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender "community" is nothing new. In the 1950s, African American gays and lesbians were not welcome in white-run gay bars and clubs. In the PC 90s, however, this topic of racism within an oppressed minority has been blithely avoided in mainstream glbt dialogues.

Racism in Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender America - ColorQ Articles Etc

You posted a lot of racist hateful crap to try to foist off the Democrats latest racist scheme to tax and bestow on Americans based on their perceived skin color according to status insecure white American Gentrified who of course, would administrate your racist scheme of "reparations."

You would have Poles paying "reparations" to Blacks in your vote buying scheme, which you seek to accomplish using our own money!

Democrats put the Japanize in internment camps and incinerated two cities with nuclear weapons, the offspring of the survivors of those atrocities will now be forcibly assessed by democrats of taxes that Democrats will then hand out to Blacks, who live in the squalor in our inner cities, which Democrats run. And like all these filthy government schemes, those running the schemes do quite well, while those they are supposed to be "helping" see nothing but more misery with perhaps a bit of help at the margins in exchange for political support to keep the con running.

Look no further than Maxine Waters a very rich lady with a home in Beverly Hills stirring up racial strife and division in her district, one of the poorest and most violent in the LA Metropolitan area.

Everything Dems run is like this. Trump on the other hand has done more for Blacks income and self-reliance than Democrats ever have.

They remember the Democrats "crime bill" that put a generation of Black men behind bars.

They know that Kamala-toe was dirty filthy crooked prosecutor who put Black men behind bars for crack cocaine use even while she was happily filling her nose with powder.

Now she wants to take away our health insurance and bus our children?

YOU FOOL NO ONE!

 

[Lewdog]

I will gladly give everything I owe to a person who can prove they are a former slave and I owned.

This whole slavery reparations stuff will thankfully go away after the election. It's just a talking point to try and get more votes.

 

[Zorro!]

I will gladly give everything I owe to a person who can prove they are a former slave and I owned.

This whole slavery reparations stuff will thankfully go away after the election. It's just a talking point to try and get more votes.

Do you have the crazy idea that taxing based on skin color is unworkable or something?