2020 Presidential election

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

I don't think it's an overstatement at all. And it's not just slavery, but the failed reconstruction and Jim Crow laws in the wake of it that set the stage for the world we're living in now.

I think Ta Nehisi Coates makes a compelling case
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

Will read, thanks. The Jim Crow laws were related to segregation in the South that lasted formally into the mid-1960s. That's at least more contemporary that slavery, and it's more applicable to a large population than seeking out former slaves and slave owners who no longer live.

 

[Zombie]

Will read, thanks. The Jim Crow laws were related to segregation in the South that lasted formally into the mid-1960s. That's at least more contemporary that slavery, and it's more applicable to a large population than seeking out former slaves and slave owners who no longer live.

It's a tricky and complicated subject to be sure, and one which at least deserves to be debated. The fact that it's nearly impossible to verify who is truly descended from slaves and who wasn't only adds to the difficulty.

I don't have a good wonky answer to your previous question. But, I think special grants and investing more in primarily black schools is, of course good and necessary in leveling the playing field as it is now, but it doesn't quite rise to the task or repaying the debt of generations of stolen wealth.

I keep thinking back to the reconstruction, and how in the aftermath of the civil war there was a plan to give each freed slave "forty acres and a mule" this plan was abandoned after Lincoln was assinated and Andrew Johnson, who was much more sympathetic to the southern plantation owners, took over. If we were to fulfill that promise today the bill would be astronomical, but I can't help but feel there's a debt the country owes for breaking that promise.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

It's a tricky and complicated subject to be sure, and one which at least deserves to be debated. The fact that it's nearly impossible to verify who is truly descended from slaves and who wasn't only adds to the difficulty.

I don't have a good wonky answer to your previous question. But, I think special grants and investing more in primarily black schools is, of course good and necessary in leveling the playing field as it is now, but it doesn't quite rise to the task or repaying the debt of generations of stolen wealth.

I keep thinking back to the reconstruction, and how in the aftermath of the civil war there was a plan to give each freed slave "forty acres and a mule" this plan was abandoned after Lincoln was assinated and Andrew Johnson, who was much more sympathetic to the southern plantation owners, took over. If we were to fulfill that promise today the bill would be astronomical, but I can't help but feel there's a debt the country owes for breaking that promise.

I'm still reading the article in The Atlantic (it's pretty long). The issue is that the expression "reparations for slavery" sounds as though one group of people is being punished for crimes they didn't commit, in order to create restitution for another group of people who are no longer here, or people who didn't directly suffer from slavery. The general idea makes some sense, but it doesn't work as a legal concept. For example, if a person was a predatory lender (regardless of the color of his skin), he could be punished for usury. If a person stole land or property, that person could be punished for theft and be forced to make repayment. If a person committed assault, he could be punished for that. That's normally how the legal system works. However, this assumes, of course, that the rule of law exists, while it sounds like the rule of law did not exist in Mississippi up until the 1970s, if that.

It might be relevant for the state of Mississippi and other southern states to create some type of reparations program for people affected by Jim Crow laws, or lack of other legal protections. In other words, just as the abuses were localized or regionalized, so would be the reparations. If you're saying, "I'm black, and therefore I should be given money or land," regardless of who you are, where you live, and whether you actually suffered abuse, that seems less likely to get traction.

I do think it is an idea that's worth discussing, just as it's worth discussing reparations for indigenous people who have been displaced by Western colonization and industrialization. But you would have to define who it applies to and how they were affected in a way that makes some sense.

 

[Zombie]

I'm still reading the article in The Atlantic (it's pretty long). The issue is that the expression "reparations for slavery" sounds as though one group of people is being punished for crimes they didn't commit, in order to create restitution for another group of people who are no longer here, or people who didn't directly suffer from slavery. The general idea makes some sense, but it doesn't work as a legal concept. For example, if a person was a predatory lender (regardless of the color of his skin), he could be punished for usury. If a person stole land or property, that person could be punished for theft and be forced to make repayment. If a person committed assault, he could be punished for that. That's normally how the legal system works. However, this assumes, of course, that the rule of law exists, while it sounds like the rule of law did not exist in Mississippi up until the 1970s, if that.

It might be relevant for the state of Mississippi and other southern states to create some type of reparations program for people affected by Jim Crow laws, or lack of other legal protections. In other words, just as the abuses were localized or regionalized, so would be the reparations. If you're saying, "I'm black, and therefore I should be given money or land," regardless of who you are, where you live, and whether you actually suffered abuse, that seems less likely to get traction.

I do think it is an idea that's worth discussing, just as it's worth discussing reparations for indigenous people who have been displaced by Western colonization and industrialization. But you would have to define who it applies to and how they were affected in a way that makes some sense.

I agree with much of this, particularly the infeasibility of simply cutting a check to to every black citizen as a solution. I don't think Marianne Williamson's plan for reparations is the way to go (and I absolutely don't endorse her as a candidate, she's a nutter), but she gave a good answer for why reparation, in some form, is necessary:

It is time for us to simply realize that this country will not heal. All that a country is is a collection of people. People heal when there is some deep truth telling. We need to realize that when it comes to the economic gap between blacks and whites in America, it does come from a great injustice that has never been dealt with.

That great injustice has to do with the fact there were 250 years of slavery followed by another 100 years of domestic terrorism.

As you will read if you finish the piece, Coates comes to the conclusion that the debate itself over the how to calculate the damage done by the plundering of blacks at the hands of whites, and what form that recompense should take, is probably more important than the reparations themselves.

He feels, and I agree, that the United States has yet to truly face and come to terms with our history regarding the treatment of blacks, HR 40 is an avenue to remedy that. It's striking that a bill simply to study the societal and economic impacts of slavery, Jim Crow, and racist housing policy, can not get through the halls of congress, regardless of it's political makeup.


The only thing I'd take some issue with is your description of the issue as a merely southern one. Jim Crow found it's way into federal policy as well, and Northern states employed discriminatory housing practices for decades, well within living memory.

 

[silesian]

Well so far everything this president has been accused of has been proven to be either wrong or a hissy fit by the left that has been taken out of context.

True.

For example, trump never screwed a porn star, lied about it, and paid hush money before the last election. Never happened.

He never believed the Russians over his own intel.

Never led the racist birther movement

Never said the black guys in Central Park 5 should be in jail after being fully cleared.

Never said “both sides”

These are the facts in the Bizarro USA in which you live. You can believe your own eyes and ears or you can believe trump.

 

[fishonjazz]

True.

For example, trump never screwed a porn star, lied about it, and paid hush money before the last election. Never happened.

He never believed the Russians over his own intel.

Never led the racist birther movement

Never said the black guys in Central Park 5 should be in jail after being fully cleared.

Never said “both sides”

These are the facts in the Bizarro USA in which you live. You can believe your own eyes and ears or you can believe trump.

I dont think he is even beleiveing trump in this case as i dont think trump has denied most of the things listed.
I think he is just covering his eyes and ears and yelling la la la la la la like a 4 year old.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Jazzta]

There’s one statement that was thrown out last night, I’m pretty sure it was Amy Klobuchar. Any of the candidates up there is more suited to be POTUS than Trump.

 

[silesian]

There’s one statement that was thrown out last night, I’m pretty sure it was Amy Klobuchar. Any of the candidates up there is more suited to be POTUS than Trump.

So is igneous rock.

 

[silesian]

I dont think he is even beleiveing trump in this case as i dont think trump has denied most of the things listed.
I think he is just covering his eyes and ears and yelling la la la la la la like a 4 year old.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

Nah, just a hissy fit from the left. LOL

 

[DasJazz]

True.

For example, trump never screwed a porn star, lied about it, and paid hush money before the last election. Never happened.

He never believed the Russians over his own intel.

Never led the racist birther movement

Never said the black guys in Central Park 5 should be in jail after being fully cleared.

Never said “both sides”

These are the facts in the Bizarro USA in which you live. You can believe your own eyes and ears or you can believe trump.

So many holes in this statement. So many false accusations. But that's okay, you do you.

 

[silesian]

So many holes in this statement. So many false accusations. But that's okay, you do you.

Does your alternative reality come with 3D glasses? Enjoy the snake oil, dude. You've been bamboozled. You'll understand this someday.

 

[DasJazz]

Does your alternative reality come with 3D glasses? Enjoy the snake oil, dude. You've been bamboozled. You'll understand this someday.

Does yours? You guys have been crying wolf since the day of the election and twisting every last little word that comes out of the president's mouth. But since you say it nice and loud and have your cronies to back you up on this forum I am supposed to take you seriously? Sorry old chap, that ship sailed approximately 3 years ago.

 

[silesian]

Does yours? You guys have been crying wolf since the day of the election and twisting every last little word that comes out of the president's mouth. But since you say it nice and loud and have your cronies to back you up on this forum I am supposed to take you seriously? Sorry old chap, that ship sailed approximately 3 years ago.

Seriously, you need to consider the possibility that the world is filled with subtext, code words, and language beyond the purely literal.

We get that you are unaware of how Trump is using language to manipulate you, and that is okay. But if you open your eyes to this possibility, you may grow as a person, improve your critical thinking skills in other domains, and be less likely to be so gullible.

Good luck.

 

[Heathme]

 

[DasJazz]

Seriously, you need to consider the possibility that the world is filled subtext, code words, and language beyond the purely literal.

We get that you are unaware of how Trump is using language to manipulate you, and that is okay. But if you open your eyes to this possibility, you may grow as a person, improve your critical thinking skills in other domains, and be less likely to be so gullible.

Good luck.

Or maybe it's the liberal agenda and media that are manipulating you. Interesting indeed.

 

[One Brow]

Or maybe it's the liberal agenda and media that are manipulating you. Interesting indeed.

It's so interesting watching a subset of the conservatives constantly decry a different subset of the conservatives as being liberal.

In more typical times, silesian and I would be in the opposite position in many discussions.

 

[silesian]

Or maybe it's the liberal agenda and media that are manipulating you. Interesting indeed.

Yeah. Wall Street journal, the economist, Bloomberg are very liberal. Smile.

You know, a stopped clock is right twice a day so you’d think you’d get something right every now and then.

 

[DasJazz]

Yeah. Wall Street journal, the economist, Bloomberg are very liberal. Smile.

You know, a stopped clock is right twice a day so you’d think you’d get something right every now and then.

You crack me up. I enjoy our back and forths. See you tomorrow? Same bat time, same bat place?

 

[The Thriller]

Yeah. Wall Street journal, the economist, Bloomberg are very liberal. Smile.

You know, a stopped clock is right twice a day so you’d think you’d get something right every now and then.

This just won the Internet today.

I’m done interneting today.

 

[Jazzta]

Go Tulsi