Zone1 Democrats Owe Reparations

[MizMolly]

None of these things are the case. Whites have done nothing on their own, the government has been white folks best friend.

Saying whites have never worked for what they have is definitely a racist comment. What are white people getting today from the government? There are lazy people of all races feeding off the taxpayers, that isn’t a racial issue.

 

[alang1216]

The only people who should pay reparations are the people who owned slaves. And the only people who should get reparations are the people who were slaves. I support that 100%.

What about people who benefited from Jim Crow laws or other types of racial discrimination?

 

[westwall]

What about people who benefited from Jim Crow laws or other types of racial discrimination?

What about them? They too are looong dead. But, if you can prove a living person benefitted, and you can find those that were screwed, then ABSOLUTELY they deserve to be compensated. Just like the black family that had their beach front property stolen from them by the government in california. It took almost a 100 years, but finally they were repaid.

 

[alang1216]

How it it “punishing” someone who already benefited by his race and is a millionaire due to the preferential policies that gave him favor. So is that going to be the tact: blacks who don’t get reparations are being “punished”, even if they were accepted to Harvard Law due to their race?

First off, not all Blacks go to Harvard. Secondly, if you are White and did go to Harvard before Blacks were accepted, are you willing to pay reparations to more qualified Blacks who were refused admission?

So you’re saying a by case basis? Do you know that amount of research that will take? Will whites have to pay for that?

So it is the right thing to do but it's too hard so we won't do it? That's not justice. Besides it would likely be like lawsuits today. A firm with the right expertise will take the case on a contingency basis.

 

[alang1216]

What about them? They too are looong dead. But, if you can prove a living person benefitted, and you can find those that were screwed, then ABSOLUTELY they deserve to be compensated. Just like the black family that had their beach front property stolen from them by the government in california. It took almost a 100 years, but finally they were repaid.

I never said it would be easy but land records and wills are public records and like genealogy they tell the story.

 

[alang1216]

no proof
Eminent domain is much different than taking people's property for political and racial reasons.
It would never make it through the courts.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that government shall not take private property except for “public use” and with “just compensation.”1 In Berman v. Parker, 2 the Supreme Court held that eliminating blight qualifies as a permissible “public use” under the Fifth Amendment. In so doing, the Berman Court permitted Washington, DC, to take a department store that was not itself in poor condition and to transfer it to a private development corporation for the purpose of curing blight in the surrounding neighborhood, in which most of the residences were considered uninhabitable and beyond repair. Pursuant to that decision, the District of Columbia was able to expel some 5,000 low-income blacks from their homes in the name of “urban renewal.”

 

[DGS49]

If you want to make something approaching a legal argument, it's the slave owners who are first entitled to reparations. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution - which existed during the time in question - asserts that citizens may not be deprived of "life, liberty or property" without due process of law. Further, if you are deprived of property (e.g., chattel slaves) by the Government, you are entitled to be compensated for the value of that property.

While the Thirteenth Amendment formally freed the slaves (the Emancipation Proclamation was nothing but propaganda), that doesn't extinguish the obligation to pay for the confiscated (freed) property.

As for what might be owed to the slaves (and their progeny), the source of those funds would have to be the slave owners - or t heir descendants. There is no tenable argument that supports a general obligation of even the Confederacy, let alone the United States, to compensate the slaves (or their progeny) for the value of services rendered.

What is going on in San Francisco is idiocy raised to the x power. California was not a slave state. What would be the source of those funds? If they were serious about the reparations think they would have to establish a rational way of applying for those reparations, and a requirement that the applicant prove descendancy from slaves. Good luck with that. How many Black people in San Francisco have no "white" blood? How many have roots other than American slaves? Who the fuck knows?

 

[AZrailwhale]

What about people who benefited from Jim Crow laws or other types of racial discrimination?

How did anyone benefit from Jim Crow?

 

[Lisa558]

First off, not all Blacks go to Harvard. Secondly, if you are White and did go to Harvard before Blacks were accepted, are you willing to pay reparations to more qualified Blacks who were refused admission?

Try to follow the debate. I didn’t say all blacks go to Harvard. YOU said all blacks descended from slaves get reparations, and I pointed out that most blacks who went to Harvard got in due to being black, and thus they have ALREADY been compensated for their color. You then amended your initial statement to say only blacks who could prove a direct connection.

So it is the right thing to do but it's too hard so we won't do it? That's not justice. Besides it would likely be like lawsuits today. A firm with the right expertise will take the case on a contingency basis.

OK, I’d go for that. A black family who thinks that a specific slave owner profited from owning their ancestors can find a lawyer willing to take the case as a contingency. But the people sued for compensation should be the slave owner’s descendants.

 

[alang1216]

How did anyone benefit from Jim Crow?

Here is one example: Any school meant for Blacks didn't receive nearly as much tax money as schools for Whites so tax payers saved. Most colleges were off limits to Blacks so Whites didn't have to complete for a spot.

 

[alang1216]

Try to follow the debate. I didn’t say all blacks go to Harvard. YOU said all blacks descended from slaves get reparations, and I pointed out that most blacks who went to Harvard got in due to being black, and thus they have ALREADY been compensated for their color. You then amended your initial statement to say only blacks who could prove a direct connection.

So no Blacks were every accepted to Harvard based on their achievements? Sorry, I don't buy it.

OK, I’d go for that. A black family who thinks that a specific slave owner profited from owning their ancestors can find a lawyer willing to take the case as a contingency. But the people sued for compensation should be the slave owner’s descendants.

Sounds fair.

 

[Lisa558]

So no Blacks were every accepted to Harvard based on their achievements? Sorry, I don't buy it.

If you’ve followed what I have said on this forum many times, one out of three blacks were accepted based on merit. Two out of three were granted admission due to race.

Sounds fair.

 

[alang1216]

If you’ve followed what I have said on this forum many times, one out of three blacks were accepted based on merit. Two out of three were granted admission due to race.

Sorry but I'm not a very good follower. Did you offer a link or some kind of evidence?

 

[Lisa558]

Sorry but I'm not a very good follower. Did you offer a link or some kind of evidence?

I worked in admissions, and it was well known. Grades and scores that had whites laughed out of the place welcomed in blacks with lower grades and scores. Charts have been posted to show this. Don’t tell me you’re surprised?

Also, Harvard itself - as part of the Affirmative Action lawsuit - admitted that without giving priority to blacks due to their race, the percentage of blacks would drop from around 14% to 3% or 4%. This was the figure that was always mentioned when I worked in admissions. One out of three blacks got in because of their color.

 

[alang1216]

I worked in admissions, and it was well known. Grades and scores that had whites laughed out of the place welcomed in blacks with lower grades and scores. Charts have been posted to show this. Don’t tell me you’re surprised?

Also, Harvard itself - as part of the Affirmative Action lawsuit - admitted that without giving priority to blacks due to their race, the percentage of blacks would drop from around 14% to 3% or 4%. This was the figure that was always mentioned when I worked in admissions. One out of three blacks got in because of their color.

There are other ways of looking at the same numbers though. If, like me, you don't think any race is naturally smarter than any other, then having preferential treatment for different groups might make sense. If Blacks are 14% of the population but their numbers in Harvard are much less than 14%, there may be other factors involved and preferential treatment may be viewed as being more fair. Just sayin'.

 

[Lisa558]

There are other ways of looking at the same numbers though. If, like me, you don't think any race is naturally smarter than any other, then having preferential treatment for different groups might make sense. If Blacks are 14% of the population but their numbers in Harvard are much less than 14%, there may be other factors involved and preferential treatment may be viewed as being more fair. Just sayin'.

The fact is that certain races DO excel academically beyond their numbers in the population - most notably Asians. Harvard and other liberal schools try to social engineer the outcome so that the races are proportionate to their numbers, and do so via racist policies.

For example, the prestigious TJ High School only had 3% blacks and more than 50% Asian because the Asian kids were acing the entrance exam and very few blacks could compete, given their lower scores. So the school eliminated the exam. The goal was to reduce the number of Asians and increase the number of blacks, even though the Asians were the better students. This is racist.

 

[MizMolly]

Here is one example: Any school meant for Blacks didn't receive nearly as much tax money as schools for Whites so tax payers saved. Most colleges were off limits to Blacks so Whites didn't have to complete for a spot.

Schools receive money partially based on property taxes of the homeowners in the area. Regardless of race, if the property taxes are lower, less money is available.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Schools receive money partially based on property taxes of the homeowners in the area. Regardless of race, if the property taxes are lower, less money is available.

I believe that in most, if not all, cases it's the entire city, not the neighborhood. That allows averaging so all schools in any district theoretically get the same amount of money.

 

[Lisa558]

I believe that in most, if not all, cases it's the entire city, not the neighborhood. That allows averaging so all schools in any district theoretically get the same amount of money.

And besides, money isn’t always the answer. The amount spent on DC students is twice as much per-capita as the nearby NoVa counties, and the DC students still do significantly worse.

 

[alang1216]

Schools receive money partially based on property taxes of the homeowners in the area. Regardless of race, if the property taxes are lower, less money is available.

So poor stay poor and the rich stay rich.