The Logistics of Reparations

[Rev. Rye]

First, you're conveniently leaving out that the original 40 Acres and a Mule plan was actually focused on land that had been captured by the Union Army in the Civil War, and which probably would have been more palatable to the freed slaves, at least until Andrew Johnson decided to give the land back to the rebels they had stolen them from.

Second, giving up on the whole reparations project solely because the side with all the power wouldn't give the others favorable terms 150 years ago shouldn't mean the idea is a dead option, especially when they've come up with other options than what amounts to a voluntary ethnic cleansing (why, yes, I know it's a contradiction in terms and this example explains why).

Third, "two (sic) many were adopted and integrated into white families"? Frankly, paternalistic White Man's Burden implications of the whole idea aside, this sounds like the sort of thing that should have been happening more often, if only to try and normalise relations between freedmen and white people.

Finally, I can't help but find it strange that you, as a half-Asian-half-white man, seems to think the default solution to a problem where race is a component is to get non-white people to go away, not even necessarily killed or forced from their homes, just something like this, except applied to an entire aggregate of people:



(And, of course, examples like you are why I reject the power+prejudice paradigm as it applies to individuals.)

[Drich]

Yet another yankee engaging in confederate revisionism.  

Slaves were not well kept.

never said all were. perhaps none by today's standard, but that is not a fair judgement is it because by that standard even slave owners were not well kept. the standard of living was much much lower. some intentionally treated slaves as dogs, and others did not. the treatment of slaves was as unique as the people keeping them. it is well documented that some slaves loved their masters and vise versa. Jefferson was an example that comes to mind as a benevolent owner. again the cost of a slave made him a very valuable investment.

Slaves became increasingly available to poorer and poorer owners for lower and lower prices throughout the entirety of the slave trades history,

which again is where i concede not all slaves were treated well/like kings, however their treatment was in relation to how the owners themselves lived.

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.

there never was a surplus, as many many white men fought for the south and never owned a slave. many who fought while land owners lived a more meager existence than what a slave could have on a much larger plantation. again there was no set rules to slavery that said all must be beaten so many times a day. that all must be hated, that all must be miserable.

Slaves did not stay where they were because they were being paid or because they were well kept or because they wanted to.

that's not true. by this time many of thee slaves were lighter in color than pure african slaves as they shared a blood line with their masters which is why many of them took their last names after the war like washington smith ect.. they were literally family.
this is proofed out by the fact that before the war started there were far more free blacks in the south than in the north. after the war those who wanted to stay did so. there were many who flooded the big cities which pushed many of the new settlers west.
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-america...rth-right/

 They stayed because there was nowhere to go.

this was true for some, but again the governement offered a trip back to africa or to colonize south america, many were headed north to work in factories, or you can stay and work your grandaddy's farm.

 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.  

do not disagree. how ever i would like to point out those who wanted to leave did so.

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.

originally sherman allocated land here for that, and it was over turned. but as an incentive to colonize central and south america lincoln was going to force all black people out and down there with the 40 acres and 2 mules. then johnson tried to sell it but more stayed.

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

i have a book of letters lincoln wrote i read a while back. he was no abolitionist. while he himself did not care for the practice of slavery he saw the good it did and the evil at the same time. by today's standards lincoln was indeed a racist. he did not see the black man as an equal. the few educated black people he saw as a unique novelties and thought most black people were not able to live as civilized men. not his fault. the science of his day claimed such things for men of 'colored races'. as this was also the prevailing thought for most natives as well. for lincoln he did not care if blacks were to be enslaved for a 1000 years or cared if he had to free them, he just wanted the war to end. he even made this deal to the leaders of the confederacy. It is lincoln's observation on how slaves were treated that i take a large part of and share with you. that and i know that in primary sourced material stuff of the period and not just the revisionist commentary you depend on IE I source period written articles period letters and books written in that time, rather than what some revisionist expert has to say about this man today. same with jefferson. if you read his own memoirs and personal letters that have been published you would know he was a man of great faith in God. and not the atheist revisionist make him out to be. in fact i have taken alot of my own personal belief about God religion and how it all works from a model of what jefferson laid out in his own hand. in 200 years if this website survives someone may look at what i had to say about God the church and jesus and like jefferson determine i am more atheist than any of you. but if you read my personal word and thoughts here for yourself you know this not to be true.

here is a link... i do not remember the name of the book it was something my grandfather/white one always talked about and read us passages out of. i got it after he died and read it once, and many thing stuck with me as it painted a very different picture of lincoln and the era than i ever heard told. this contrast between what i was sold/told in school verses the man's own words and thoughts was one of the reason i reexamined the bible. wanted to see how the church may have gotten things wrong. i still have that first bible and it is full of questions and notes that show contradictions between what i was learning in church at the time and what the bible said. (still hadn't decided to become full on christian yet/had to figure all of this out first)
https://www.loc.gov/collections/abraham-...ollection/ this link is something similar. i don't think there's any run up commentary.. like the book we had explain to whom lincoln was speaking and the circumstance of the letter to give it context.

---

...Who told you that, and why do you believe it?

Probably a message from gawd.

actually it was letters from lincoln

[arewethereyet]

Yet another yankee engaging in confederate revisionism.  

Slaves were not well kept.

never said all were. perhaps none by today's standard, but that is not a fair judgement is it because by that standard even slave owners were not well kept. the standard of living was much much lower. some intentionally treated slaves as dogs, and others did not. the treatment of slaves was as unique as the people keeping them. it is well documented that some slaves loved their masters and vise versa. Jefferson was an example that comes to mind as a benevolent owner. again the cost of a slave made him a very valuable investment.

Slaves became increasingly available to poorer and poorer owners for lower and lower prices throughout the entirety of the slave trades history,

which again is where i concede not all slaves were treated well/like kings, however their treatment was in relation to how the owners themselves lived.

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.

there never was a surplus, as many many white men fought for the south and never owned a slave. many who fought while land owners lived a more meager existence than what a slave could have on a much larger plantation. again there was no set rules to slavery that said all must be beaten so many times a day. that all must be hated, that all must be miserable.

Slaves did not stay where they were because they were being paid or because they were well kept or because they wanted to.

that's not true. by this time many of thee slaves were lighter in color than pure african slaves as they shared a blood line with their masters which is why many of them took their last names after the war like washington smith ect.. they were literally family.
this is proofed out by the fact that before the war started there were far more free blacks in the south than in the north. after the war those who wanted to stay did so. there were many who flooded the big cities which pushed many of the new settlers west.
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-america...rth-right/

 They stayed because there was nowhere to go.

this was true for some, but again the governement offered a trip back to africa or to colonize south america, many were headed north to work in factories, or you can stay and work your grandaddy's farm.

 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.  

do not disagree. how ever i would like to point out those who wanted to leave did so.

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.

originally sherman allocated land here for that, and it was over turned. but as an incentive to colonize central and south america lincoln was going to force all black people out and down there with the 40 acres and 2 mules. then johnson tried to sell it but more stayed.

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

i have a book of letters lincoln wrote i read a while back. he was no abolitionist. while he himself did not care for the practice of slavery he saw the good it did and the evil at the same time. by today's standards lincoln was indeed a racist. he did not see the black man as an equal. the few educated black people he saw as a unique novelties and thought most black people were not able to live as civilized men. not his fault. the science of his day claimed such things for men of 'colored races'. as this was also the prevailing thought for most natives as well. for lincoln he did not care if blacks were to be enslaved for a 1000 years or cared if he had to free them, he just wanted the war to end. he even made this deal to the leaders of the confederacy. It is lincoln's observation on how slaves were treated that i take a large part of and share with you. that and i know that in primary sourced material stuff of the period and not just the revisionist commentary you depend on IE I source period written articles period letters and books written in that time, rather than what some revisionist expert has to say about this man today. same with jefferson. if you read his own memoirs and personal letters that have been published you would know he was a man of great faith in God. and not the atheist revisionist make him out to be. in fact i have taken alot of my own personal belief about God religion and how it all works from a model of what jefferson laid out in his own hand. in 200 years if this website survives someone may look at what i had to say about God the church and jesus and like jefferson determine i am more atheist than any of you. but if you read my personal word and thoughts here for yourself you know this not to be true.

here is a link... i do not remember the name of the book it was something my grandfather/white one always talked about and read us passages out of. i got it after he died and read it once, and many thing stuck with me as it painted a very different picture of lincoln and the era than i ever heard told. this contrast between what i was sold/told in school verses the man's own words and thoughts was one of the reason i reexamined the bible. wanted to see how the church may have gotten things wrong. i still have that first bible and it is full of questions and notes that show contradictions between what i was learning in church at the time and what the bible said. (still hadn't decided to become full on christian yet/had to figure all of this out first)
https://www.loc.gov/collections/abraham-...ollection/ this link is something similar. i don't think there's any run up commentary.. like the book we had explain to whom lincoln was speaking and the circumstance of the letter to give it context.

---

Probably a message from gawd.

actually it was letters from lincoln

Lincoln talks to you too!  That's amazing.  Dead people, fictional people, mythical people.  Simply amazing.

It's hallucinations Drich.  You are unstable.

[Drich]

First, you're conveniently leaving out that the original 40 Acres and a Mule  plan was actually focused on land that had been captured by the Union Army in the Civil War, and which probably would have been more palatable to the freed slaves, at least until Andrew Johnson decided to give the land back to the rebels they had stolen them from.

he did repeal the 40 acres in union and reoffered it in south america, or a ride back to africa

Second, giving up on the whole reparations project solely because the side with all the power wouldn't give the others favorable terms 150 years ago shouldn't mean the idea is a dead option, especially when they've come up with other options than what amounts to a voluntary ethnic cleansing (why, yes, I know it's a contradiction in terms and this example explains why).

it was not given up. for those who wanted to go/hated this country passage was provided and if you wanted your own land and a fresh start one could do so in a the 40 acres and a mule program. the reparations for those who wanted to stay was the right to stay. as many were inbred to the families they served. many of them were given lands to share crop.

Third, "two (sic) many were adopted and integrated into white families"? Frankly, paternalistic White Man's Burden implications of the whole idea aside, this sounds like the sort of thing that should have been happening more often, if only to try and normalise relations between freedmen and white people.

Finally, I can't help but find it strange that you, as a half-Asian-half-white man, seems to think the default solution to a problem where race is a component is to get non-white people to go away, not even necessarily killed or forced from their homes, just something like this, except applied to an entire aggregate of people:



(And, of course, examples like you are why I reject the power+prejudice paradigm as it applies to individuals.)

you wrongly assume whites are the only purest/racist people on the planet. if you think whites are racist go to old korea. or japan or hell go to africa and not be black skinned. my point is not this was a valid solution, but what they were discussing in that day, and what's more the men and women who were actual slaves were over all happy with what they got. we got to remember different times different people

---

never said all were. perhaps none by today's standard, but that is not a fair judgement is it because by that standard even slave owners were not well kept. the standard of living was much much lower. some intentionally treated slaves as dogs, and others did not. the treatment of slaves was as unique as the people keeping them. it is well documented that some slaves loved their masters and vise versa. Jefferson was an example that comes to mind as a benevolent owner. again the cost of a slave made him a very valuable investment.
which again is where i concede not all slaves were treated well/like kings, however their treatment was in relation to how the owners themselves lived.
there never was a surplus, as many many white men fought for the south and never owned a slave. many who fought while land owners lived a more meager existence than what a slave could have on a much larger plantation. again there was no set rules to slavery that said all must be beaten so many times a day. that all must be hated, that all must be miserable.
that's not true. by this time many of thee slaves were lighter in color than pure african slaves as they shared a blood line with their masters which is why many of them took their last names after the war like washington smith ect.. they were literally family.
this is proofed out by the fact that before the war started there were far more free blacks in the south than in the north. after the war those who wanted to stay did so. there were many who flooded the big cities which pushed many of the new settlers west.
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-america...rth-right/
this was true for some, but again the governement offered a trip back to africa or to colonize south america, many were headed north to work in factories, or you can stay and work your grandaddy's farm.

do not disagree. how ever i would like to point out those who wanted to leave did so.
originally sherman allocated land here for that, and it was over turned. but as an incentive to colonize central and south america lincoln was going to force all black people out and down there with the 40 acres and 2 mules. then johnson tried to sell it but more stayed.

i have a book of letters lincoln wrote i read a while back. he was no abolitionist. while he himself did not care for the practice of slavery he saw the good it did and the evil at the same time. by today's standards lincoln was indeed a racist. he did not see the black man as an equal. the few educated black people he saw as a unique novelties and thought most black people were not able to live as civilized men. not his fault. the science of his day claimed such things for men of 'colored races'. as this was also the prevailing thought for most natives as well. for lincoln he did not care if blacks were to be enslaved for a 1000 years or cared if he had to free them, he just wanted the war to end. he even made this deal to the leaders of the confederacy. It is lincoln's observation on how slaves were treated that i take a large part of and share with you. that and i know that in primary sourced material stuff of the period and not just the revisionist commentary you depend on IE I source period written articles period letters and books written in that time, rather than what some revisionist expert has to say about this man today. same with jefferson. if you read his own memoirs and personal letters that have been published you would know he was a man of great faith in God. and not the atheist revisionist make him out to be. in fact i have taken alot of my own personal belief about God religion and how it all works from a model of what jefferson laid out in his own hand. in 200 years if this website survives someone may look at what i had to say about God the church and jesus and like jefferson determine i am more atheist than any of you. but if you read my personal word and thoughts here for yourself you know this not to be true.

here is a link... i do not remember the name of the book it was something my grandfather/white one always talked about and read us passages out of. i got it after he died and read it once, and many thing stuck with me as it painted a very different picture of lincoln and the era than i ever heard told. this contrast between what i was sold/told in school verses the man's own words and thoughts was one of the reason i reexamined the bible. wanted to see how the church may have gotten things wrong. i still have that first bible and it is full of questions and notes that show contradictions between what i was learning in church at the time and what the bible said. (still hadn't decided to become full on christian yet/had to figure all of this out first)
https://www.loc.gov/collections/abraham-...ollection/ this link is something similar. i don't think there's any run up commentary.. like the book we had explain to whom lincoln was speaking and the circumstance of the letter to give it context.

---

actually it was letters from lincoln

Lincoln talks to you too!  That's amazing.  Dead people, fictional people, mythical people.  Simply amazing.

It's hallucinations Drich.  You are unstable.

you now making shit up..
letters beeotch letters i learn about the era through his letters I never once said he spoke to me.

[HappySkeptic]

you wrongly assume whites are the only purest/racist people on the planet.

I won't comment on the rest of your post, but I agree with you here.

Every culture has racism.  Even minorities can be racist (though they don't have the power to give it any political importance).

Racism is something that humans do, probably as part of our tribal evolution.  But, we can train ourselves to notice when we are falling into racist patterns.  That doesn't mean we can't disagree with the ideas or viewpoints of another culture.  But, is our dislike of an idea rational or xenophobia (or both)?  It actually takes the activation of a few brain cells to be a decent human being.

[Rev. Rye]

he did repeal the 40 acres in union and reoffered it in south america, or a ride back to africa

it was not given up. for those who wanted to go/hated this country passage was provided and if you wanted your own land and a fresh start one could do so in a the 40 acres and a mule program. the reparations for those who wanted to stay was the right to stay. as many were inbred to the families they served. many of them were given lands to share crop.

you wrongly assume whites are the only purest/racist people on the planet. if you think whites are racist go to old korea. or japan or hell go to africa and not be black skinned. my point is not this was a valid solution, but what they were discussing in that day, and what's more the men and women who were actual slaves were over all happy with what they got. we got to remember different times different people

A: Which only proves my point that they were given bad terms that caused them to stay in America. You yourself stated that they stayed because their lives in America were all they knew. And once the choice went from "making a name for myself by running Massa's old land myself" to "abandon everything I know to possibly run a farm on another continent that the government may or may not actually let me have" (remember, they already changed the terms of the plan; who's to say they wouldn't do it again?) it only makes sense that far fewer would go along with it. It's not even a matter of whether they liked the conditions of slavery; it was a question of whether the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. 

B: The reason I said "given up" is that you argued, "Are you serious? reparations were paid" in response to Biker's question about the modern-day plan for reparations (which, in itself, is a strawman), heavily implying that because we tried that, there's no reason to try now.

C: No, I don't think white people are the only racist people on the planet. In fact, I specifically stated that I don't consider the prejudice plus power paradigm applies to individuals, and I remember you personally using the "I'm half-Korean, so by your rules, I can't be racist!" card in the past. And, frankly, the racism of Koreans or Africans is not the issue at hand in this thread: it's how we can address the systemic inequalities that have resulted from slavery.

[onlinebiker]

Holy shit..


This thread has gotten so wordy if somebody prints it out the resulting mass of paper will collapse under it's own weight forming into a black hole - sucking in the whole solar system and eventually the galaxy. Then the universe........


I feel bad about starting it now....

[The Grand Nudger]

There's no point in fact checking you after that abysmal performance, Drich.  Blaming lincoln for your own ignorant racism.

---

Annnnywho, to steer this out of klan territory and back into mere reality, reparations has nothing to do with racial guilt. It is the government acknowledging that the united states government failed and harmed an entire class of people, and the insistence that it do what it can to make this right. In case of slavery, to level the playing field....though, not really, more like slightly un-tilt it because that's the full extent of our practical ability until we invent time travel. It's not a giveaway based on slave or oppressor genes, and anyone who finds themselves thinking as much needs to seriously consider the kinds of places they've been getting their information.

[Fake Messiah]

Talking about reparations, can it be determined how many black people are descendants of slaves and how many are descended from people who came afterward, with their own free will?

I guess not many came afterward because there was segregation until a little over 50 years ago which didn't make the US very desirable for black people to come and live.

[Doug1943]

For the sake of argument, let's agree, for the moment, that American descendants of slaves should receive reparations.

The question then arises ... what form should these reparations take?  Just handing a big wad of money to someone is not necessarily in their best interests.

If we were talking about Chinese, or immigrants from the Indian sub-continent, we could be pretty sure that almost all of them would spend it wisely: starting or expanding a business, saving it, hiring another tutor for their children.

But would this be the case for the Black community?  Surely, some of them would use it wisely. But isn't it obvious that there are a significant number who would not? 

So, if there are going to be reparations, let them be like food stamps, which, in theory, can only be spent on food, not on drugs or alcohol.  (Note: the operative phrase there is "in theory".)

Here's how I think the reparations should be used: getting inner-city Blacks out of their terrible high crime environment, where the murder rate has shot up in the last two years, for some reason. 

So, let the money be used to build new high-rise apartments  -- like 'the Projects' in South Chicago -- but in safe areas, where they new inhabitants will be assured of a warm welcome (not among horrible racist XYZ-phobic Trumpsters!)

Identify the areas where 75% or more of the population voted for Joe Biden, and which have average family incomes of $100 000 or greater. (The American average is about $65 000). Areas like Marin County and other parts of the Bay Area, and similar places around the country. In other words, where well-off white liberals live.

Then buy up an acre or two of land there, demolish the homes on it (after compensating  the owners), and build the high-rise apartments, and move in several thousand Black people from areas like South Chicago.

The local police, in case they are harboring the same racist attitudes that inner-city police seem to develop, would need to be put on notice that they are not to harrass, arrest, or otherwise bother the new inhabitants. 

The local white population would be strongly encouraged to invite their new neighbors into their homes for a welcoming meal.   

This is surely the best way to spend reparations money!  I know that all white liberals and progressives would welcome this development!  (If they don't, they should check their privilege, or read Kendi X about liberal racism.)

Let's think outside of the box here!