No they don't

What if somebody has 20% African American Ancestry? Or 40%?

Do they get the same amount or is it different? Is there a chart somewhere?

That's literally not what's being proposed

(September 29, 2020 at 5:19 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: That's literally not what's being proposed

Yeah, and frankly, such a plan would be logistically impossible. Apart from the fact that it would be so difficult to calculate how much would be earned, let alone get ahold of all that money (which is invariably counted as being in the trillions), just giving people a lump sum isn't going to solve the systemic issues of inequality at hand.

And as for the question of percentages of black ancestry per person, the issue is so complicated (due in no small part to the fact that slave rape was so endemic that, to this day, the average African-American has a high amount of white ancestry) that setting up gatekeeping percentages isn't going to work. Indeed, a non-negligible number of people who've lived as black actually have a majority white ancestry, and we're not talking Rachel Dolezal types, we're talking about Henry Louis Gates, Jr., African-American Studies professor who also hosts Finding Your Roots, a geneology show. And it turned out that his ancestry, much to his surprise, was majority white. He wasn't a white man pretending to be black for some sort of minority points, it should be noted; he grew up in an African-American community in West Virginia with black parents (biological) and in his DNA, there was just that much splitting of dark oak in his family tree that he actually ended up having a plurality of European Ancestry. And yet, he lived the black experience, up to and including getting arrested for a crime as petty as trying to get into his own home.

The more workable solution for reparations would be investing in black communities, trying to get them to develop on par with white America, which, indeed, is what a lot of the proposals actually aim to do.

It seems like a no-brainer, since we're going to have to invest in those communities anyway.

(September 29, 2020 at 6:11 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It seems like a no-brainer, since we're going to have to invest in those communities anyway.

Pretty much were just killing two birds with one stone

---

(September 29, 2020 at 6:09 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(September 29, 2020 at 5:19 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: That's literally not what's being proposed

Yeah, and frankly, such a plan would be logistically impossible. Apart from the fact that it would be so difficult to calculate how much would be earned, let alone get ahold of all that money (which is invariably counted as being in the trillions), just giving people a lump sum isn't going to solve the systemic issues of inequality at hand.

And as for the question of percentages of black ancestry per person, the issue is so complicated (due in no small part to the fact that slave rape was so endemic that, to this day, the average African-American has a high amount of white ancestry) that setting up gatekeeping percentages isn't going to work. Indeed, a non-negligible number of people who've lived as black actually have a majority white ancestry, and we're not talking Rachel Dolezal types, we're talking about Henry Louis Gates, Jr., African-American Studies professor who also hosts Finding Your Roots, a geneology show. And it turned out that his ancestry, much to his surprise, was majority white. He wasn't a white man pretending to be black for some sort of minority points, it should be noted; he grew up in an African-American community in West Virginia with black parents (biological) and in his DNA, there was just that much splitting of dark oak in his family tree that he actually ended up having a plurality of European Ancestry. And yet, he lived the black experience, up to and including getting arrested for a crime as petty as trying to get into his own home.

The more workable solution for reparations would be investing in black communities, trying to get them to develop on par with white America, which, indeed, is what a lot of the proposals actually aim to do.

Indeed that method would never work . Reparations need to be fixing what the original issue created , And really it helps everyone in the long run .

It seems to me aggressive affirmative action would be far more to the point, and effective, then reparation?

(June 24, 2020 at 11:23 am)onlinebiker Wrote: I will not entertain any debate of whether or not reparations for slavery should be paid - but simply want to figure out the logistics.

Who gets how much - and who pays it?

Would this have been done 140 years ago - it would be very simple  (and just) - if you were a slave you get paid X dollars for however many years you were a slave.

No problem.

However - now - there isn't anyone who was a slave during that period. (of course there's slaves now -but nobody seems to give much of a shit about that)

So who gets paid now - and how much?

You can't simply say - "my ancestor was a slave". That isn't a data point. "My great great great grandfather (provide name) was a slave (provide years) - and we have one data point. Unfortunately - the slave owners took advantage of the female slaves and a fair number of them sired offspring. So if your great great great grandfather was a slave -- and another great great great grandfather was a slave owner - doesn't the one cancel the other out??? After all - we shouldn't be paying the owners of slaves a damned cent.

And - what if you have 1 great great great grandfather who was a slave - and a great great great grandfather who was a freeman --- they did exist. Do you get a half share?

Then there's the problem of who foots the bill.

Again -- 140 years ago - it would be easy. The slave owners are the guilty bunch. They should have paid. It doesn't seem right to make abolitionists who risked everything to help free the enslaved.

It just seems it will be a hugely complicated task to figure out who is owed what - and distribute it equitably. What will be considered legal evidence of heredity and who decides what is a fair share?

The only simple way - is to show up -have somebody take a look at you and say "Yup. You look like a black guy - here's your money."

And who pays?

White people only? Are native Americans exempt? How about Asians? Latinos?

What about white people who's ancestors immigrated after slavery was made illegal? They didn't have anything to do with it. Why should they pay?

Because they're white????

Isn't that kinda racist?

are you serious? reparations were paid. slaves at the end of the war according to the lincoln plan were either to be shipped back to africa/liberia (they consider themselves as an american colony/territory because the vast majority of the population were ex slaves) or they were shipped to central south america and given 40 acres and a mule to colonize those regions. so everyone who wanted to leave left. and either went back to africa or went off to start new us colonies in the central and southern americas. the original 40 acres and a mule was reoffered here as an incentive for freed slaves to have their own lands. those who wanted this left. many opted to stay, as for one this was the only life/culture they knew. and two many were adopted and integrated into white families. Yes there were mega plantations that treated slaves terribly, but many were small farms and a slave cost a years wage for the average man. if you buy a 50 to 70,000.00 dollar car, your not going to smack it with a hammer, or treat it poorly when it needs maintenance or service. it will be garage (which is not as nice as the rest of the house but far better than outside) kept well maintained and serviced. so it would be natural for a large amount of people to stay especially if they were getting paid.. so those who stayed passed on the 40 acres and 2 mules or a trip back to africa. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/20...entral-am/

---

the short answer is they already happened for those who wanted them. them meaning the actual people who where held as slaves.

Yet another yankee engaging in confederate revisionism.

Slaves were not well kept.

Slaves became increasingly available to poorer and poorer owners for lower and lower prices throughout the entirety of the slave trades history, until, hilariously....the slave rush of the civil war - where owning a slave could get you out of confederate service. They were being bred as livestock.

Slaves did not stay where they were because they were being paid or because they were well kept or because they wanted to. They stayed because there was nowhere to go. The freed slave problem was such that the majority were seeking employment in the north, who didn't actually want them, and who very much would have liked to put them on boats, again, and ship them off to the forgetting place, a place that freed american slaves had overwhelmingly never known to begin with.

The 40 acres and a mule bit was a great idea, but was overturned by Lincolns successor Andrew Johnson, and what little land had been dispersed through this program was returned to the planters who had originally owned it - all of them confederate traitors.

Nothing, absolutely nothing in your post is a factual recounting of history. Who told you that, and why do you believe it?

(September 30, 2020 at 1:34 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: ...Who told you that, and why do you believe it?

Probably a message from gawd.