Ten oz

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

and that's why a line needs to be drawn.

I am not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate? 

If you read my whole post I am saying it is worth looking at property which was promised to but never given to African Americans and property forcibly taken from Natives.

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

As long as slavery was legal I don't think it is reasonable to expect that any assets derived from it should be subject to forfeiture.

Not all segregation has been legal and if someone can prove harm I would imagine they could make an argument in court for compensation.

Starting in 1938 with the Property Registry the Germany govt passed many laws that disenfranchised Jewish people and stole their wealth. Many atrocities have happened under than banner of law.  

Property is one of the top manner in which wealth is created and moved down through generations. The combined value of all the real estate in the U.S. is $30 trillion. Massive amounts of land were given to White families for free. Families literally were able to just stake land claims. Something Natives, African Americans, and Chinese weren't able to do. Whites in the South didn't only own slave but also stole vast amounts of land from Native. The Indian Removal Act  forced Natives out of the South leading to the Trail of Tears  and gave White Southerners ownership of the property. 

Segregation may have only existed in the South but mortgage discrimination was nation wide. Blacks, even those who could afford to it, were prevented from buying homes is a variety neighbors with better prospects for equity growth and education. As mentioned in an earlier post the current President was proven guilty in a court of law of discriminating against African Americans in his real estate dealings. The problem continues to this day. African Americans have been and continue to be denied a fair opportunity to compete for a slice of that $30 trillion in real estate. During the Civil War African Americans had been promised land and in some cases given land but post Reconstruction that was mostly all reversed. 

Quote

 

Forty Acres and a Mule refers to a promise made in the United States for agrarian reform to former enslaved black farmers by Union General William Tecumseh Sherman on January 16, 1865. It followed a series of conversations between Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton and Radical Republican abolitionists Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens[1]following disruptions to the institution of slavery provoked by the American Civil War. Many freedmen believed and were told by various political figures that they had a right to own the land they had long worked as slaves, and were eager to control their own property. Freed people widely expected to legally claim 40 acres (16 ha) of land (a quarter-quarter section) and a mule after the end of the war, long after proclamations such as Sherman's Special Field Orders, No. 15 and the Freedmen's Bureau Act were explicitly reversed.

Some land redistribution occurred under military jurisdiction during the war and for a brief period thereafter. However, federal and state policy during the Reconstruction eraemphasized wage labor, not land ownership, for blacks. Almost all land allocated during the war was restored to its pre-war white owners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_acres_and_a_mule

 

White families are more likely to receive an inheritance than black families and among those who receive an inheritance white families receive a much bigger inheritance. Property is the most easily traced source of wealth I can think of. We have seen arguments in this thread that reparation is akin to revenge or that is unduly punishes people for something they neither participated in or benefited from. Going back and looking at where sources of wealth came from and how those sources do directly still benefit people today and are still impacting wealth inequality today might (maybe, still just exploring the idea) be a healthy step. 

Quote

The figure below shows median wealth for households with and without an inheritance. White families are twice as likely to receive an inheritance as black families, and that inheritance is nearly three times as much. Even among black families who inherit wealth, the racial wage gap is much larger, compared to white families who inherit wealth. For families with an inheritance, median white wealth is 7.5 times larger than for black families. Comparatively, white families have 5.4 times more wealth than black families without an inheritance. The importance of inheritances to the wealth position of white families is staggering. At the median, an inheritance increases wealth by more than $100,000 for white families and only $4,000 for black families. Link

Identifying ill gotten and/or maintained land (taken via native removal or promised to Slave pre Reconstruction) seems more practical to me than a standardized from of payment/benefit based purely on race. In many cases, perhaps most cases, the slaves promised that land or the Natives removed from lands can be identified. 

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'm not American Ten oz.
Any 'conversation' your government and your people may have concerning reparations for the continuing after-effects of slavery, is not one I'll be a part of.
And yes, a lot of Americans will see it as an attack on their way of life.
Your President is proof of that, and shares those sentiments, no matter how many statistics you 'preach to the choir'.

Yes, a lot of people will see it that way. No argument there. My objection was to you citing average Americans. Trump lost the popular vote. His supporters are no more average Americans than those who opposed him are. Your use of average Americans was redundant at best and had some undisclosed loaded meaning at worst. 

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

But it seems that if someone says that they may not want to get involved in a discussion that will degenerate into bickering and name calling, you consider that 'dropping a turd'.
Furthering that discussion towards bickering and name calling.
Well done

Well done, lol. You asserted that people would want to discuss certain things and brought those things in. Also I don't feel saying you dumped a turd is the same thing as name calling. I am not calling you a turd. 

Anyway you challenged me to elaborate on my comments from page one and I gave you 3 posts from page 2 where I did. Did you find the answers you asked for or do you need further clarification? 

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

All you've done since the first page is attack people who agreed with your opinion, and who made some attempt to explain why they are impractical.

The below quote is also from the second page

On 3/21/2019 at 10:21 AM, Ten oz said:

I too have been thinking on it. Trying to figure out how best to explain my objections. I do not have any problem with Congress taking the issue up for consideration. I don't think any conversation is off limits. One of my hang ups, I guess, is the involvement of Presidential Candidates. The President serves everyone, all communities throughout the nation, equally. For it to be a Presidential matter (in my opinion) there needs to be a case made that it is in the best interest of the whole nation. Community by community leaders can make individual decisions about how to best create equal opportunity and repay disenfranchised individuals. Our system already allows for that. What is the impetus for Presidential involvement? During segregation the impetus was that States were violating human rights and the Constitution. 

I suppose this is bit of a cross post with the Democratic Primary thread but I see a difference between activists and Presidents. MLK wasn't a President. Cesar Chavez wasn't a President. Activists are not responsible for the whole nation. Activists can be focused on more singular goals for singular groups of people. The ACLU, Green Peace, PETA, are all organizations doing good work but are not Govt Agencies. It don't think it is the Presidents place to take up the lead role of activist less it can be demonstrated to be in everyones best interest. Easy examples of such things in my opinion are Healthcare and Climate Change. 

As stated in the rest of my post the common themes we already have are being regularly ignored. 

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Reparations is not about assigning guilt. It is about, among other things, making up for a wrong that was done. No one is asking only the sons of slave owners to pay reparations. No one is asking only white people to pay reparations. This is largely about the government taking responsibility for policies it allowed which resulted in problems faced by blacks today, and in some small way, making it up to them.

This gave me thought. What if assets could be traced back through a family and it be shown how they benefited from Slavery and or Segregation. Should those assets be taken away? For example post Slavery families kept their plantations. I'd imagine some of that real estate remains in the hands of descendants to this day and continues to be a source of wealth. Would the govt striping individuals of such assets be a good idea? 

This is not a rebuttal of any kind to your post. It is literally just a thought which popped into my head. I am not advocating for it much as just exploring it. Might be a sobering slap in the face for many you argue they never owned slaves and haven't benefited directly from slavery. Losing valuable antiques, property, homes, and etc which have enriched heirs for generations might be quite the slap in the face. 

20 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Yes.

I disagree. I don't think their is any sort of anti white movement afoot in U.S. media or popular culture. Whites regularly are able to win political elections, star in movies, manage successful social media accounts, host news programs, record successful pop music, and etc. 70% of the population of the U.S. is White. So unless you believe a significant amount of Whites in the U.S. are self hating the majority of the U.S. is not anti White. 

25 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

But in general it's okay? Exactly, when is it okay for someone to be entitled because of their race? Is it ethnically okay? 

I didn't say it was in general. I am trying to address the specific scenario you are referencing. I am not capable of imagining every possible scenario which may exist.

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

Meanwhile back at the OP... 

Again, back on the first page of this discussion, Ten oz, you state...
"While I feel reparations are justified in theory I don't think it is practical as a policy."

You have still not explained why you think they are impractical.
Are you going to do so anytime soon ?

All you've done since the first page is attack people who agreed with your opinion, and who made some attempt to explain why they are impractical.

Both of the below quotes are from page two and expand on the very thing you are claiming I haven't expanded on.

On 3/20/2019 at 7:27 PM, Ten oz said:

I agree. 

How untenable reparations might be isn't at the heart thought process. It is just the easiest of my thoughts on the subject to express. 

In the same way a victim of a violent crime just wants to feel safe again I believe people, everyone, wants to feel safe, equal, and that things are fair. I think taking down Confederate statues, hiring police that are part of the community they police, ensuring that beautifying (gentrification) a neighbor doesn't mean removing people of color, and many other things along those lines would make those historically discriminated against feel safe, equal, and that things are fair. I think there is more opportunity for catharsis in simply removing symbols of division than in creating ways to apologize or reimburse. 

On 3/20/2019 at 8:52 PM, Ten oz said:

Case by case when tangible I agree. In gentrification unduly displaces a family that family should be adequately compensated. In a person is injured by aggressive police they should be adequately compensated. It is harder to address as a catch all nationally. There might be common ways people have been disenfranchised but it is still a unique experience for everyone. Do all cases receive the same retribution? I don't think that is fair per se. The same prescription for all ills.

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

Meanwhile back at the OP... 

All we got from you is something about Confederate symbols being still out there, and how some whites are disenfranchised also.
Then have the gall to claim others 'dropped a turd' and don't explain themselves.
( no, I'm not letting it go )

Yes, turd is word I used. You stated a list of issues saying "some people" would like to discuss them while adding "not me, I'll be keeping my distance". You brought those items up for discussion while claiming you wouldn't be discussing them. I consider that a turd. Just say what you have to say. Posting about what others might say, the average American sees (you used that turd as well), and so is all unnecessary. Just speak for for yourself and spit it out already. 

On 3/22/2019 at 1:50 PM, MigL said:

If any reparations are to be made to 'correct' past inequalities/injustices, they would have to be sizeable.
20 dollars apiece and an apology isn't going to do squat to correct the inequalities inherent in the system.

That being said, the government does NOT have any of its own money that it can dish out.
It is all taxpayer money that the government re-distributes, and any that goes towards reparations either comes at the expense of other programs, or has to be re-payed by our children. So although Dimreepr is being his usual terse self, he makes a valid point and sizeable reparations could hurt others.

Why not simply have equal standards going forward, that people are people, not black or white.
Only those qualities which directly affect a person's performance/actions is to be considered, not their skin color, sexual orientation, ethnic background, etc. 

Even what Ten oz did in a previous post, breaking down  voting and sports affiliation, while seemingly done to show the inherent inequalities, would be considered racist if done in other areas, such as crime statistics. So you can see the dilemma in trying to have a 'conversation' about reparations; you don't come off as being genuine if you make some areas of discussion off-limits.
Some people ( not me, I'll be keeping my distance ) will no doubt want to discuss the role/influence  black-on-black violence, and absent fathers, have on the current inequalities.
It may start out as a conversation/discussion, but in the current political climate, it would likely degenerate into race wars.
Does the US really need that problem also ?

14 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

The media is constantly trying to rally people around an anti white banner.

You feel this is happening in the U.S.?

16 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Tell me should he gave gotten any thing just because he is black.

If the question is related to the Oscars than my answer is no. I don't think anyone should win an Oscar based on race.

21 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

That is what reperations speaks to, you get something because you think you have been offended from someone who had nothing to do with it. The children pay for the sins of the father. And must accept that, because they are children of the father, that they were born guilty. Isn't that racism? Should I call it justice?

I recommend you review the link the OP for more context. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

28 minutes ago, koti said:

Seems perfectly correct. For a statement from someone who claims that pollitical correctness does not exist.

So then we agree that Black Panther's Oscar nominations had nothing to do race.

 As for Dave Chappelle lamenting about various audiences not liking his jokes isn't that the nature of his industry? In my opinion It is Chappelle's job to entertain the audience and not the audiences job to laugh at jokes they don't find funny. Dave Chappelle makes millions and has a large base of fans. It would be inaccurate to imply Chappelle is being silenced or isn't free to speak his mind. Not every audience likes him. That's no big deal. No celebrities I am aware of are Universally loved. A comic telling Catholic Priest pedophile jokes  in Vatican City  will get less laughs than if they told the said jokes in New York City. Entertainers need to know their audience. 

17 hours ago, koti said:

You have got to be kidding me. Do you seriously exercize the idea that this movie got rewarded for its merits? It's a piece of crap and it getting awards is a disgrace to cinematography. There is no clearer example of pollitical correctness going too far.

Black Panther wasn't nominated for Best Cinematography. It was nominated for Musical Score, Costume Design, Production Design, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, and Best Picture. It won Oscar's for Musical Score, Costume Design, and Production Design. Art is subjective but I think it is fair to say Black Panther did have music, sound, and design which was expertly utilized. 

I assume (and you can correct me if I am wrong) that you are implying Black Panther got extra consideration because it was Directed by and starred black people. Yet the Director wasn't nominated for anything and neither were any of the actors from the movie. The Musical Score Oscar went to Ludwig Göransson who is a White Male. The Production Design Oscar went to Jay Robert Hart and Hannah Beachler. Jay Robert Hart is a White Male. 

9 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Koti didn't like the movie. That doesn't make him a racist. There have been several people in this thread that haven't agreed with you. That doesn't make them racist.

Whom here have I called racist?

21 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Strawman. Who said PC was an 'academic' thing? PC is a behaviour.

That is fair. I am responding to the use I most often see where PC culture is more specific.

21 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I hope you realize you are totally throwing the OP off course. I think CharonY wanted this topic to be an exploration of the issues surrounding the the idea of reparation for blacks, not for us to take a side and start arguing. 

I don't think I am. Black on black crime, PC culture, and etc are often brought into conversations about racial inequality. The negative implications associated with them are often built off of stereotypes and act as a sort of whataboutism argument turning blame or responsibility on the disenfranchised group itself. Challenging those misnomers doesn't derail the discussion. They are part of the inequality. I think it is fairly obvious in koti's post about Black Panther. Lots of movies that various people don't think were good have won Oscar's. Why is Black Panther is singled out?

14 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Says you.

Can you provide a concrete explain of Academics uniting to prevent specific discussion from taking place?

33 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It does exist because some people feel they must act a certain way to be seen as conforming.

What doesn't that apply to though? Some people conform to any number of fake things. Children write letters to Santa Claus but that doesn't make Santa real. Political correctness as an ideology pushed by academia suppressing freedom of thought or speech doesn't exist. 

14 hours ago, iNow said:

Mueller has finished his report. We don’t yet know what will be within nor how broadly and openly it’ll be shared. 

There is a lot of questions swirling. At present time it is unclear whether there are any sealed indictments or whether Mueller's investigation finished on its own or the new AG forced the issue. Given what we already know from the Manafort and Cohen indictments it is obvious that at a minimum investigators believe Trump Jr. lied to Congress. Then of course Southern District of New York can continue with their own indictments and operate outside the purview of Barr. It will be interesting to see what gets made public, how long it takes, what Congressional investigations follow, and etc.  

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

This is my point: people have been free to denigrate some minority group for so long that it feels 'normal' to do so, and Bush at the time was complaining about preserving a style of  speech that should not have been  allowed in the first place. 

I agree but am adding that political correctness as an actual thing doesn't exist. It is just a type of MacGuffin used by those seeking to make themselves the victim. It is often easier to claim ones ideas aren't being considered than it is to validate those ideas.  

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

The crux is that there are convenient answers and responses to black on black crimes, including draconian measures. White issues are handled far more carefully, traditionally (other examples include how addiction is handled for each community). Now that folks ask for a similar recognition and handling for black communities some folks cry PC this and sjw that. If folks mention that this is disruptive or inaccurate, one gets accused of playing the race card or excuses it that some folks allegedly silence other folks by calling them racist. IOW there is a double standard at play and even acknowledging that seems to be troublesome.

Right. When crack cocaine was an issue in specific black communities the answer was to increase prison sentences. No that opioids are an issue in specific white communities Politicians want to increase funding for rehabilitation. For blacks drugs have been treated as a criminal justice issue and for whites a healthcare issue. 

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Do things only appear politically correct because things are not currently politically-correct?  The politically-correct behaviour feels incongruous, or even absurd,  with the current mindset and past history. What I''m saying is that the correct behaviour has to start somewhere and it will naturally feel odd in the beginning because one is not used to it.

The notion of politically correctness as a new problem sweeping media and Universities has been around for decades. It is neither something new nor sweeping in scale. Below is President George H.W. Bush complaining about the new growing problem of political correctness stifling free speech back in 1991 nearly 30yrs ago. Of course in the decades since the internet and social media has only empowered free speech to levels never before seen. In my opinion political correctness is merely a catch all excuse one uses when an opinion or ideas of theirs is out of touch with the majority of reasonable people. 

37 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Assuming for now that this statement is true, how do you think should engagement be other than educating folks regarding the reasons? Such as the vilification of black folks, increased incarceration for similar or lesser crimes etc.? In effect what you describe is a popular stereotype-based narrative which requires some deeper analysis to understand. However, barely anyone proceeds beyond that first step (which typically is the erroneous assumption of a deadbeat father)  and puts the blame on the disadvantaged community. So, how do you think should one meaningfully engage this complex situation? Specifically, how do we address the imbalance of perceptions and power? I.e. we have strong opinions on the failures of the black community and have no trouble implementing policies with, as we know now, rather devastating effects. On the other hand, if we want to address these issues we have to carefully engage, probably everyone but the black community (because they probably have a better insight on how the system is biased against them), as the "average" American is apparently deeply misinformed.

The issue with that, of course, is that African American communities again are on the short end of the stick, and get told that their experiences do not count for much at least up until we can correct the misinformation. Meanwhile, of course right-wing media still beat the drum of black on black violence, drug abusers deadbeat dads and so on.

90% of black people who are murdered are murdered by black people and 85% of white people who are murdered are murdered by white people. Black on black crime as a label promotes inaccurate stereotypes. It is statistically accurate to say in cases where black people are victims of crimes (theft, violence, etc) the perpetrators of those crimes are black. It is equally as statistically accurate to say the same thing about Whites yet it is never said. White on white crime as a label doesn't exist like black on black crime does. 

Crime is worst throughout the U.S. in impoverished communities. White on White crime, Asian on Asian crime, Black on Black crime, and etc are all worst in impoverished communities. 

1 minute ago, MigL said:

While what you say is true about crime statistics and how they've been systematically used to oppress, CharonY, that is not the general perspective.
What the average American sees is the black-on-black crime/violence and gang membership in absence of a father in the house.
And the average American is who you have to convince to have a meaningful conversation.
Attitudes some forum members display don't convince anyone, they just build resentment.

Do you have a citation to support your assertion about what "the average American" perspective is? 

Exit poll from 2016 showed 49% of the public believed blacks are treated unfairly by the criminal justice system to 42% of that felt they were treated fairly, Link.A poll from this past summers shows the 3/4 of Americans support criminal justice reform. 

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

Is that enough mustard for you, ten oz, or would you like some more ?

Strange that you'd compliment CharonY for demonstrating how to have a conversation but then not pay CharonY the respect of a direct response free from sniping at other posters. 

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

And how about you answer questions posed to you, your highness...
"Why don't you post why you think this 'conversation' would go differently in the US, at this point in time ?"

Would go differently from what? It is you have asserted how the conservation might go not I. I also don't understand what you mean "by this point in time". Marcus Garvey, Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, Andrew Goodman, and etc, etc were murdered in the 60's for discussing Civil Rights. It isn't as though other times in history has embraced equality discussion easily.    

The tax cuts are clearly negatively impacting the annual deficits. As executed the tax cuts have failed to achieve they stated objective. Increases in GDP spurred by business growth from the tax cuts were suppose to pay for the tax cuts and increase jobs. 

Quote

 

The U.S. posted its biggest monthly budget deficit on record last month, amid a 20 percent drop in corporate tax revenue and a boost in spending so far this fiscal year.

The budget gap widened to $234 billion in February, compared with a fiscal gap of $215.2 billion a year earlier. That gap surpassed the previous monthly record of $231.7 billion set seven years ago, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

February’s shortfall helped push the deficit for the first five months of the government’s fiscal year to $544.2 billion, up almost 40 percent from the same period the previous year, the Treasury Department said in its monthly budget report Friday. The release was delayed a week by the government shutdown earlier this year.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-22/u-s-posts-largest-monthly-budget-deficit-on-record-in-february

 

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

CharonY has just demonstrated how you have a 'conversation'.
Are you paying attention, Ten oz ?

How about you muster a response to CharonY's post. 

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

I simply stated where I saw the 'conversation' going, and my reasoning.
You are already proving my point by taking a confrontational stance.

You asserted things which are not true. Your whole post was subversive. No one has said any of the things you mentioned are off limits. You are attempting to position your views as unfairly treated in advance of even stating them. 

Do you plan to explore your thoughts on the matter or just censor yourself and play victim? 

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Even what Ten oz did in a previous post, breaking down  voting and sports affiliation, while seemingly done to show the inherent inequalities, would be considered racist if done in other areas, such as crime statistics.

Who here denies minorities are arrested and imprisoned at higher rates than whites? Race is often front and center when discussing crime statistics. 

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

you don't come off as being genuine if you make some areas of discussion off-limits.
Some people ( not me, I'll be keeping my distance ) will no doubt want to discuss the role/influence  black-on-black violence, and absent fathers, have on the current inequalities.

Who has said any of that is off limits? It is laughable you say "some people" but not you may wish to discuss those things yet you are the one here bringing it up. You seem to be attempting to eat your cake yet have it as a display piece as well. If you want to discuss those items you listed than do so. Don't just dump than off like a loose turd and claim someone else would like to discuss them. 

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

It may start out as a conversation/discussion, but in the current political climate, it would likely degenerate into race wars.
Does the US really need that problem also ?

Isn't it often the point of political and racial violence to silence people? Fear of making the opposition mad isn't a good reason to table a discussion. 

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

they have more money than love

To limit the confusion can you provide a citation which links reparations by Germany with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. 

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Jews.got more money...

Meaning what? You seem to be confusing the Israeli Palestinian conflict with the Germany paying reparations. It was Britain and the U.S. who advocated for the creation of Israel through the UN. Had nothing to do with German reparations. 

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Historically

Israel exists whether or not reparations happened. The conflict between Israel and Palestinians does too. Explain how German reparations to Jews hurt Palestinians. 

30 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

tell that to a Palestinian

How are the 2 related directly? 

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

When did reparations work?

 

Germany's 1952 Reparations agreement