what are "Slavery repetitions"

I think that is the Republican's plan.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

---

DFL > DNF > DNS

"Trump looks better everyday;"

No.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Strong work!

Have to give kudos where kudos are due.. Nice work!

I am not in favor of reparations.

But the way you trivialize the history of how African's were forcibly brought to this country in a slave trade by comparing it to voluntary immigration has me reconsidering. I mean, yeah, it is almost the same thing, right?

I don't mean to trivialize slavery. I think the idea of reparations is absurd. Clear enough?

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

Typo fixed. but I haven't seen anyone above comment on what a great idea this is, so we must all agree that it's bat shit stupid right?

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

This is not something I would support. It is not something I benefited from nor were responsible for. It is a losing issue in an election.

What about going after those who brought them here like French, Dutch, Spaniards, Portuguese etc? Demand reparations from them too. There is money to be made. Also, don't forget the African chiefs who sold their people or in other way cooperated with slave traders. There is money to be made there too. And why limit the reparations to good ol' US? South America is full of slave descendants. Of course, there is slavery in Asia and within Africa but those are not as cool as going after America. Yeah, baby, there is money to be made.

Strike two...are repartitions like when you put a wall back up where there had been one before, but it had been torn down at some point?

It is amazing how easy it is NOT to trivialize slavery...yet... you felt the need to go there to make your point. Don't worry I am sure many will make the same point...something about ignorance and company?

I picked a bad day to quit sniffing glue.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

You think he was trivializing slavery? Holy shit, snowflake, get a fucking life. How many Social Justice Warrior points are you getting for these posts?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Lol

Meanwhile, former NFL player and conservative author Burgess Owens pointed to the Democratic Party as historically responsible for injustices against black Americans, from slavery to the Ku Klux Klan to the literacy rates for black Americans in Democratic states and cities.
"How about the Democratic Party pay for all the misery brought to my race, and those who after they learn our history decide to stay there ... and every white American, Republican or Democrat that feels guilty because of their white skin should need to pony up also -- that way we can get past this reparation and recognize that this country has given us greatness," he said.

https://www.foxnews.com/...-slavery-reparations

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

 I'm starting to think the Dems want a civil war. Slavery was practiced by Native Americans long before the Europeans came along. So is this America's "original sin" or are we only counting when whites owned slaves?

On one hand there is not any sense at all in reparations. On the other hand we also know that minorities were systematically excluded from accumulating wealth for a very long time. On another hand laws have been in place for decades to prevent that. On another hand we know those laws have been repeatedly ignored in a lot of areas for a very long time. On another hand that seems to have become much more rare over time.

We also know that the most vile racists found a home in both parties and in all walks of life through the 60's.

Even if you did think they were 'deserved', I don't think you could implement reparations in any way that would actually address the claimed concerns

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Wow. How exactly did you get wanting a civil war out of this?

And are you seriously suggesting that the Native Americans, who the US Government systematically removed from their lands and took over control of those lands, are *checks notes* responsible for the slavery of Africans?

Wow. Strong play there.

Wow, so Fox News found a NFL player we are supposed to listen to? That is new.

JSA this really isn't that hard. Tell your black friends that the problem with reparations is that it would require compensating Irish immigrants. See how that goes over with them. There are a hundred reasons why reparations are untenable. That isn't one of them. And for that matter neither is, "because that would be blacks cashing in."

I seem to have touched a nerve with you. I have no idea why.

How Exactly would this work? Who decides how much each person gets and where does it come from? Does each person with African American ancestry get the same percentage or is different based upon lineage?

Anyone in favor of reparations for slavery has to not only ignore US history where over 600,000 soldiers died in a war to end slavery, they have to ignore World history where slavery existed long before slaves were ever brought to America and continued to exist after the US outlawed slavery. In the 1700's if you had a big boat and you wanted to go into the African slave trade, you went and bought slaves. Guess who you bought them from, right, you bought them from other Africans.

So if anyone owes black Americans anything because of slavery, it's the African slave countries where their ancestors came from.

Democrats, please don't go down this road. You will lose half of the voters who want to vote for you.

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

Ahh yes, who is ultimately responsible for Jim Crow is *reads your post* African slave countries.

Seems like a great way to turn off black voters who favor reparations and then don't receive them.

Also, let's say a bill was passed to pay reparations to those who could prove they're descended from slaves. Presumably it could be quite hard to prove, further frustrating black Americans?

The idea seems bad from so many angles, even if the concept may be noble.

I have no freaking idea and neither does anyone else. If there was a plan surely somebody would have shared it with us by now right?

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

WOW. I didn't see that coming. Well played sir.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

It's a stupid idea!

Wasn't it noble enough when we went to war to end slavery. Did any other country fight a war to end slavery!

And don't anybody give me the BS that the Civil War was over state's rights; the right they were fighting over was the right to own other people!

---

---------------------------
''Sweeney - you can both crush your AG *and* cruise in dead last!! 😂 '' Murphy's Law

I'm trying to figure out how America's "original sin" isn't wiping out the Native American population and stealing all their land.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

From what I see in the media our original sin is slavery. If that's the case we share that sin with every race, culture and nation.

The problem, as you illustrate above, is that no one can even articulate that for which reparations would be paid. I thought this was about the "original sin" of slavery? If so, that had nothing to do with what happened in the 1960s. If we are talking about what happened prior to the Civil Rights movement, well, pardon me, but the Civil Rights Movement, the Civil Rights Act, and affirmative action were already put in place to address that.

Who is going to decide who is entitled to reparations? How will that be determined? There were black slave owners, we cannot ignore that. How do we trace the lineage back to ensure only descendants of actual slaves are paid?

Also, where from where does the money come? Tax dollars? Is that "fair?" My descendants did not even land in the country until after slavery is abolished and they (Irish) were herded into ghettos for decades. So ... why am I paying for the reparations? What about the blacks who are not direct descendants of slaves - why on earth should their tax dollars be used to pay reparations?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

You Donkeys really hate being reminded of your evil past, don't you?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

No, it really isn't that hard. The "nerve" you seem to have touched is watching the perpetually offended engage in asinine hyperbole. There is nothing in the original OP that trivializes slavery or in his response. You appear to have nothing of substance to contribute to the conversation, so, you have resorted to trying to find some way to attack the messenger.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Thank you! Exceptionally well said.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Exactly! In addition, from where is the money coming? Taxpayer dollars. That means you would have huge groups of African-American taxpayers, who either are not descended from slaves or who cannot prove they are, paying a portion of these reparations. How on earth does that make sense???

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

If what we as a people are supposed to do is make amends for the wrongs that happened to a class of people, then we need to get on the world stage and start having about half the planet paying everyone of Jewish ancestry. Talk about a people who have been screwed over since Biblical times, damn!

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

 

Hmm, so which party is this guy in? Or this guy right here? Hmm, why is it a state holiday here? Or this guy defending statues to traitors loved slavery.

Maybe Republicans should look at the present before they judge someone.

You Donkeys really hate being reminded of your evil past, don't you?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Do you think Reparations are a good idea and how would you implement it?

Is this something you want the Dems focusing on going into the election cycle?

No, Democrats willing acknowledge their racist past and Republicans current racism. I don’t know why you are saying democrats hate it.

I'm talking to you - the butthurt one in this thread.

You stupid fucks are the reason Trump was elected the first time and you are doing your damndest to get him reelected. Congrats.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I cannot wait to see AOC explain to her District - which is 48% Hispanic and 9% black - why they should be paying reparations. I would actually pay admission to attend that town hall meeting.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

No, Democrats willing acknowledge their racist past


Like the Governor of Virginia!

Elizabeth Warren has said, "wait a minute" "my people need to get in on this too" She is talking about her direct Native American Ancestry.

The ideas with any substance at all seem to be related to tax breaks, business incentives etc. and not a direct cash payment of any kind.


This is such a dead issue with no chance of passing and clearly just grandstanding by the folks pushing it. As the OP said, what a plan to win in 2020. Four more years of Trump...

Wow, really struck a nerve there. Republicans hate when you point out their racism.

Good job, Donkey. Good job.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I really hope this gains traction. I really do.

I am going to repeat what I wrote earlier. AOC's District - 48% Hispanic, 9% black. Please, please, please push for reparations! I would pay money to attend the town hall meeting of AOC explaining this to her constituents! This is THE MOST effective way for the GOP to gain the Hispanic vote!

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

When asked about reparations, here is what AOC said (translation - "oh shit, don't ask me about that!"):

Well, you know it’s a good question, I think that one of the things that we’ve seen her from early polling, actually, is that I think that we should distance ourselves and start getting away from this idea that that we should only care about ourselves. Because when we really do start to assert and believe and understand and see how how our destinies are tied, it doesn’t, you kind of get away from this idea that only people of you know people of color care about other people of color, and only white people care about other white people, and so on.

There are a lot of systems that we have to dismantle, but it also it does get into this interesting area of where we are as a country, about identity. Because, like, what does it mean to be black, who is black and who isn’t, especially as our country becomes more biracial and multiracial.

Same with being Latino, same thing… it brings up all these questions like passing, and you know, things like that. But I do think it is important that we have to have substantive conversations about race beyond beyond, like, what is racist and what is not, and if someone says something racist does that make them racist, like, we need to get away from talking — well, not that we have to get away from talking about racism, it’s important that we talk about racism — but because we talked about racism so much, we actually aren’t talking about race itself. And we aren’t educating ourselves about our own history to come to the conclusion that I think we need to come too.

https://www.mediaite.com/...eparations-question/

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Biggest leap of illogic I've seen here in a while (and that is saying a lot). I don't happen to agree with reparations (but they were granted to Japanese internment victims). Not sure on which planet that is automatically a call for Civil War.

People will eventually say "enough is enough". You're going to take money out of the pocket of one group to give it to another group because of something that happened centuries ago. So you're pitting one group against another. That's how you get civil wars.

I had relatives on the Mayflower.. I want a FOUNDERS FEE

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

Uh ... Jamestown?

I had relatives that died fighting for the North. Will I be exempt from paying for this?

Too many variables and permutations for reparations to be managed by the government.

My family mostly got here in the 1870's, do I get a pro-rated bill?

The argument is that you and I benefited from the systemic exploitation of slaves and subsequent discrimination. And, more convincingly to me, that blacks were prohibited/hindered from acquiring wealth and that issue echoes down through generations.

But that real quickly becomes a problem because my family's wealth didn't echo very well, and most people are in that same boat. And a lot of people not descended from slaves had similar discrimination. And a lot of people's families got here after the fact. And the list goes on.

The fact is, we really fucked up. We held on to slavery a lot longer than many other countries. After we technically got rid of slavery we had defacto slavery. After that faded we had horrible discrimination. That went on for decades.

I just don't see how to make reparations work. 1870-1900 would have been a real good time for that.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Gotcha!!! Elizabeth Warren is going to sue you for your Founders Fee AND interest.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

I thought we called everything even with the distribution of Obama Phone?

Nope. You Ben Affleck. Pay up, bitch!

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

You are white and that is good enough to make you pay. Here in Canada the government has endlessly apologized to natives, endlessly paying them compensations and now the natives are pushing to declare whites' action against them a genocide. Why should I pay for it when I wasn't even in the country where it has all happened?

It's called "Ben Affleck Syndrome."

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

what if you are only partially Ben Afflecked ... and that part is Irish and might have been a slave as well... I aint paying.

So, you are going to secede over a debate on reparations? Interned Japanese got reparations in 1988, you are aware of this, right? Is there some civil war that it set off that I am not aware of? Right now, all sorts of states suck a ton of money from richer states, in terms of federal taxes and outlays. Before you post, take a really long look at the list of states that are net beneficiaries, and net losers, and think through how absurd your argument is.

You understand that was granted to actual internees who suffered a loss during WWII, right?

Take a long look at this law and the proposed reparations and think through how absurd your argument it.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

If you're a white American whose ancestors were in this country more than 2-3 generations prior to your birth, you absolutely have benefitted economically from the system of slavery and the subsequent racist systems that followed in its aftermath. It's not just slavery, but the economic and "justice" systems that followed it. Anti-black systems didn't die off with the death of indentured servitude and they definitely haven't died off in the ~60 years following civil rights legislation.

Whether or not economic reparations are the right answer to remedy wrongs is another point of discussion, but there's no doubt white Americans of all sorts have benefitted economically -- and unjustly -- from American racism going all the way back to our roots and continuing for centuries beyond.

You seem to have completely missed the core point I was making. PrinceMax has stated that this debate will lead to civil war.

I stated that I don't agree with reparations in general, but it obviously isn't Civil-War-starting material, do you actually think that it is? Furthermore, his entire basis is a weak "government taking my money" which ignores just how small this amount is in the context of present taxation, and how much some areas of the country already benefit.

You fixated on 1988 reparations, which was merely an example of how minor the debate on a reparations issue (which has been floating around for deacdes) really is (or should be). It has never Civil-War material, and it never will be. That is my argument. If you are going to say that my argument is absurd, you are going to have work on the reading comprehension to understand the argument.

I think we can all agree to let you tell the roughly 14 million+ white Americans living at or below the poverty line that they are beneficiaries of unfair economic discrimination against African Americans and that they need to fork over some reparations money.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

First, this bill has to be passed so then you could read it.

Then our ever efficient government will set up a new office requiring 15-20,000 government employees to manage the new program.
They will realize more processes and measure need to be implemented which in turn requires hiring another 5-10,000 employees.

This post is so intellectually dishonest you should take your own advice.

Are you talking a different proposed bill?

HR 40 https://www.congress.gov/...s/house-bill/40/text
This bill establishes the Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans to examine slavery and discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and recommend appropriate remedies.
Purpose.—The purpose of this Act is to establish a commission to study and develop Reparation proposals for African-Americans as a result of—[/url]
(1) the institution of slavery, including both the Trans-Atlantic and the domestic “trade” which existed from 1565 in colonial Florida and from 1619 through 1865 within the other colonies that became the United States, and which included the Federal and State governments which constitutionally and statutorily supported the institution of slavery;
[/url]
(2) the de jure and de facto discrimination against freed slaves and their descendants from the end of the Civil War to the present, including economic, political, educational, and social discrimination;
[/url]
(3) the lingering negative effects of the institution of slavery and the discrimination described in paragraphs (1) and (2) on living African-Americans and on society in the United States;
[/url]
(4) the manner in which textual and digital instructional resources and technologies are being used to deny the inhumanity of slavery and the crime against humanity of people of African descent in the United States;
[/url]
(5) the role of Northern complicity in the Southern based institution of slavery;
[/url]
(6) the direct benefits to societal institutions, public and private, including higher education, corporations, religious and associational;
[/url]
(7) and thus, recommend appropriate ways to educate the American public of the Commission’s findings;
[/url]
(8) and thus, recommend appropriate remedies in consideration of the Commission’s findings on the matters described in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6); and
[/url]
(9) submit to the Congress the results of such examination, together with such recommendations.



All this bill would do is set up a commission to study and recommend. There are no proposed reparations here.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Please elaborate. Is it intellectually dishonest to point out that federal funds are diverted ALL THE TIME, and that if he is going to complain about money taken from taxpayers and given to others, he needs to soberly examine all the ways that it happens presently.

I'll ask again: Do you personally think that this debate on reparations will set off a civil war?

Once you back out New Mexico, Mississippi, and West Virginia (which are demonstrably on federal "welfare"), over 86% of the remaining difference between federal taxes paid and federal expenditures/transfers in/to a state are explained by defense expenditures (relevant time period: 1980-2000, doubt it's changed much since I did that research). I'd be willing to chalk up the rest to a combination of bureaucratic incompetence and which politicians are better at getting "pork" for their constituents.

You never asked me doofus. Directly set off an analogue to the War of Northern Aggression, no I do not. I answered your question now please compare and contrast how the 1988 reparations worked with how these could work paying special attention to eligibility and the actual recipients. You can use both sides of the paper.

I see this notion gaining traction a lot, but this is a not universally held position amongst economists. Furthermore, while you could possible make this argument for some people in a large urban areas (although I still think it's a stretch), I think you would be hard pressed to argue that rural whites in the much of the country probably had much benefit at all. For example, perhaps you could tell me how white immigrants in Minnesota's Iron Range benefitted economically from either slavery or "economic" systems that came afterwards, while they scrabbled out an existence in mines (with a lot of immigrants being seriously exploited by the mine owners) and on farms deep in the woods of Northern Minnesota. And one could take that argument to many different places in the US.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

I can't figure out. Did you quote some idiot in a bikini trying to win Miss America, or did you quote an actual representative of Congress, one who may have graduated from an institution of higher learning, perhaps cum laude?

Hang on...

I, like, can't figure out what you, you know, did there. Did she, like, maybe graduate from the college or something. Or actually did she, like, get a degree with honors?

You might be onto something...here is a potential funding source for reparations. Town hall meeting tickets, pay-per-view, etc. Maybe Don King, if he's still alive, could promote the events!

Black voters know it's not going anywhere. Black voters know it's not possible. Black voters are happy the topic is heard.

It very easy to track slave ancestry. There are adults alive today who's grandparents were slaves. My wife's grandpa is still alive, his grandparents would have owned slaves if they wern't poor hillbillys in the mountains of Kentucky

I don't think so. I think slavery systems are inferior economically to non slavery systems. So in that sense white people have suffered economically instead of benefitted. I think economic systems under Jim Crow are inferior as well. Even systems subject to the dramatically lessened, but still sometimes present, racism are inferior. Pretty much by definition, racists prevent themselves from maximizing the human value around them.

It's hard to see the "net white economic gain" from the North destroying the South in the Civil War -- not to mention the 600,000 dead whites in the process.

I propose that if America had never had slavery, never had Jim Crow laws, and never had racism I would be an even richer person than I am now. I feel really confident about that statement.

Please stop digging. Did you get that from a KKK mailer?

Wtf? Fuck you.

I understand the point you are making. Do I think reparations would lead to civil war? No. Not an actual civil war. Perhaps an irreparable rift in the nation, but, not an actual civil war. But, the support you used for your position was the reparations for the Japanese internment camps. That's comparing apples to hand grenades and actually under-cuts your argument, rather than supporting it.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Yeah geez not sure where that came from. It’s a pretty valid argument. When you’re just looking at the Civil War; all the deaths, money spent on the war, money spent on the reconstruction, and time this took away from regular economic growth at the time it’s a pretty valid argument.

No. Not even a little bit.

The Jesuits kept unusually detailed records of the slaves on their Maryland plantations, which may help their descendants establish a connection - but for millions of African Americans, the majority of whom are believed to be descended from slaves, the process is notoriously difficult.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37291230

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

It wasn't until the late 90's that we figured out Jefferson was in fact keeping his wife's half sister as a sex slave and banging out kids with her.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

This is much how I feel about it too though I could go all the way up to 1970. It is hard to ignore the economic devastation caused to the black community by Separate but Equal doctrine.

Well, it can be argued that the federal government coming in and telling states to end slavery and then end segregation was the basis for an irreparable rift, The reparations debate merely rubs salt in a wound that appears to be largely unhealable, and one that no one can agree on how to fix, and a sizable chunk of the population refuses to believe exists.So, here we are.

"slavery systems are inferior economically to non slavery systems". Free labor (other than the cost of housing, feeding, beating and killing) is inferior economically than paying for the labor?

"white people have suffered economically" because of slavery. Really? Really??? Yeah, Fuck You back!

SH: You have to admit, framing the issue of slavery and Jim Crow in how it effected you it seems a bit obtuse. IF there is some middle ground here I hope we can find it because I do think you ask some interesting questions.

I have done a little reading on the issue. I think the academic consensus is that the US Economic Advantage developed in the 19th century was largely driven by the slave economy. Cotton plantations in the South lead to textile innovations in the North and the US dominated economically (having an ocean between its economic rival also helped). But through the century technological advances degraded the utility of free labor and at some point free labor was actually depressing wages and further innovation. Those points are pretty obvious and not really that controversial. Free labor ended up being a drag.

My only issue with what you wrote is your presumption that in a more competitive labor force you would have personally benefited from the larger pie. In your specific case I think you are correct - and to avoid JSA blowing another gasket I'll just presume you were only referring to yourself - but I doubt that is true about white America as a whole. What do you think?

I'm going to ignore the other back and forth and focus on this. Because it is something I've been thinking about. Over the last couple years I've traveled around the south quite a bit. Gone to old plantations in Louisiana, Virginia, etc. Been reading quite a bit this Spring about Washington and Jefferson. Reading a lot more history on American slavery, etc.

I have been kicking an idea around in my head. Was it really cheaper in dollars to hold slaves as opposed to paying marginal wages to free poor people? Historically in a lot of situations you have poor people doing really hard jobs for really low pay, living in squalor and barely surviving. Think coal mining company towns, sharecropper farmers, industrial revolution factories in the late 1800's. That sort of thing. With slavery the acquisition cost was pretty damn high, of course not when the slaves had children. And you also had to provide for them. As opposed to poor laborers where you paid them just what it took to survive and no acquisition cost, no medical care on your end, etc.

Or were there other considerations that drove it? Control of the labor force for one. Meaning, you didn't have to try to find laborers when you needed them, you didn't have to deal with people refusing to do the really bad jobs, etc. For another, and it creeps me right the hell out to debate in my head how much, the ability to abuse and rape slaves could have come into play, but I think it must have been some factor.

So I've been wondering how much was straight dollars and how much was easier management of labor and the other really horrible factors.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

In a general sense isn’t that exactly what the democrats propose when talking about minimum wage laws. It would be more economically advantageous to pay workers a higher minimum wage because it will benefit the economy more? What he is saying is no different. Instead of having slaves if they paid them as employees they would contribute to the economy more and therefore the economy overall would be better off.

I get why you’re upset about the other piece but I don’t think he meant it in a flippant way. More of if we never had these issues everyone would be better off.

His arguments include much mroe than that. They ignore the historical significance of slavery to the country. I am pretty sure the southern states would not have flourished they would have without cotton/tobacco through their early stages of development. This was mainly because of slave labor. He pretty much starts the "net negative" of slavery at the damage the north did to the south via the civil war.

if his arguments were that having a livable wage for everyone would cause all ships to rise, that is a vastly different argument than "the white man would have been better off without slavery"

The moment any wage is paid better laborers have the ability to earn a better wage. Was the average slaves "compensation" commensurate with output? Possibly. But profits were obviously much better for those who were out-producing yet provided the same basic compensation. Exploitation of the basic human desire to do good work was at play here.

Go team!!!!

I remember all your posts about Trump being a Clinton plant. Do you still believe that shit?

First off... No, AJ, I am not being obtuse. MidwestRoadie wrote down a complete argument. The argument was that all whites, by virtue of their skin color, had benefited from slavery, Jim Crow, and racism. I responded to it. The end.

I can see someone arguing that "some white people" benefitted from holding slaves. But that wasn't the argument. And the fact that the argument involves all white people is a very important aspect.

You start asking what whites can trace their current fortune to slaves. I know what the answer to that question is for me: ~$0. I'd imagine -- considering a multitude of factors -- the overall numbers would be surprisingly low.

(And that's before we get to a counterfactual world were we're all richer in the absence of all the terrible economic outcomes done in the name of slavery and racism).

This issue is nothing but a plan to win in 2020. They are advancing such an idiotic plan because they have NO PLATFORM. That's the real problem. It's part of the two pronged strategy for all candidates to get people to vote for them.

1. Must hate Trump with all of your being.
2. Must promise free everything and, in this case, free money.

All of this debate over what is nothing but a red herring. The dem candidates are like a bunch of sidewalk hawkers desperately trying to become legitimate and get the passers by to come into their storefront.

There is nothing more to see here although the wasted time arguing is moderately entertaining.

Greg

---

If you are a Canuck that engages in gratuitous bashing of the US, you are probably on my Iggy List. So, save your self a bunch of typing a response unless you also feel the need to gratuitously bash me. If so, have fun.
"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f___ things up" - Barack Obama, 2020

And you're ignoring the context of the argument I was addressing. I'm not surprised.

Quote:

He pretty much starts the "net negative" of slavery at the damage the north did to the south via the civil war.

Yes, I mostly do because...

1.) To the extent there was any "net positive" anywhere it went to a small minority of whites.
2.) Pre-war "net positive" may have existed, but after the civil war was a grossly different situation.
3.) Most slave based value was destroyed in the war. That's the way wars are. Wars destroy things and then the survivors have to pick up the pieces.
4.) The actual argument I addressed was that all whites that had lived here for 2-3 generations where guilty of economic benefit from slavery, jim crow, and racism. The actual argument doesn't mention pre-civil war era slave holders.

Yes on the profits and production. And the half-baked theory in my head is just that, half-baked.

Where I was going is looking at it like this. When you go through Mount Vernon they talk about the different jobs being done at different times of the year. Every season they were keeping the slaves busy. Farming, fishing, cutting wood, clearing land, etc. every time fo the year had a different focus. And most of those jobs aren't skilled or technical The actual dollar per hour of exploiting slaves may have been equal to or greater than hiring any individual laborer for any individual job.

But if I am the landowner I never have to worry about whether I can find labor to do those jobs if I have slaves. My production is much greater than using free men because I always have the labor when I need it and where I need it. I can rent out my slaves when I'm not using them, increasing my profit, something not possible at all with free men.

I think the other thing you are getting at, and feel free to correct me, is the inflation of wages. And slavery really controls that as well. Cotton and rice are very labor intensive. There were most likely not enough laborers in the south to actually staff farms with free men. And that would cause a rapid increase in wages greatly decreasing profits.

The willingness of humans to keep slaves and horribly mistreat them is pretty disturbing. Across societies, across millennia, willing to do the most horrific things to them. Gives me the willies.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I don't agree with you and I'll tell you why. You are looking at only one side of the equation -- the competition for jobs. You've got a zero-sum thinking hat on.

There is another side of the equation: the value of the input from each worker. The value of the input from each worker creates jobs and makes lives better. That value comes from the physical work put in. That value comes from the additional buying power that becomes manifest. And, absolutely most importantly, that value comes from the proliferation of ideas about how to make things better.

“You start asking what whites can trace their current fortune to slaves. I know what the answer to that question is for me: ~$0.”

You were a swimmer at SMU? The SMU endowment has 100s of millions of dollars in mineral rights that generations back were owned by the plantation owning families. 30 years ago the endowment was likely 70% mineral rights. I doubt SMU would have a swim team much less money to give in scholarships without these funds. Also worth considering how you benefited from having basically zero competition with black Americans in the sport because blacks had limited access to swim pools just one generation above us.

I haven't see an actual economic study on this topic, but, there are a lot of interesting discussions out there on the cost of slaves vs. cheap labor. It seems the primary advantage of slaves were that they bore offspring, which could be used as slaves or sold. There was profit in breading as well. Finally, there was the control aspect.

See: https://www.google.com/...=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I'm with you on the willies thing. Very disturbing and very difficult to comprehend. I just started watching The Handmaid's Tale and it is a bit hard for me to watch how the Handmaids are treated, which, while horrible, still pales in comparison to what many of the slaves suffered.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

1.) I'm not following how mineral rights would be worth zero without slaves, jim crow, and racism.
2.) Your swimming points are wildly speculative. I did not swim for SMU (just an FYI).
3.) I've competed in many sports with black athletes, including swimming. Your "analysis" there is too wild to warrant engagement. That starts just getting to be anybody's guess.

No on this we agree completely. When I said the pie would be bigger I mean the total economic output. The socialistic structure of a slave labor force is detrimental to net economic growth.

What I was saying is you cannot assume your stake in the larger pie would be the same (though I agree it likely would be). Even with a larger pie you are going to have some net losers.

It's not just a larger pie. It's a better pie. That's what being materially richer is all about.

So, I'd say, yeah, whites would net benefit.

Sure. To use an entirely cherry picked extreme example...

If an immigrant comes to this country, steals your job at the lab, but then goes on to cure cancer, then I guess you were a net loser on that. But I think I could still argue immigration as a good thing for white people.

Are you arguing that jim crow laws - blacks weren't allowed to swim - didn't effect the level of competition? You just made an economic argument to the opposite.

What I'm saying is that it becomes entirely unknown what anyone would have done in response to any type of particular circumstance. We are not without options. It degenerates into pure conjecture.

To cherry pick an example:

if blacks weren't allowed in public pool until, say, 1999 then Cullen Jones wouldn't have won an Olympic Gold Medal in 2008 and some white guy would have swam in his place. But then Phleps may have only won 7 golds so net loss for everyone (conclusion: black participation in swimming has been a net gain for all Americans).

I had a spreadsheet of everyone on here who swam, where they went and what events they did. I lost it because I had saved it on the desktop of a computer that was lost due to Harvey.

Still digging??? Hmmmm.

There are some generalized things you can say about economics, economics systems, and progress. I've made my points based on those principles.

Trying to just take one person's life and just add a random variable -- like the potential ramifications of potential increases in black swimming -- is just too speculative to conclude anything from. A few things to note...

1.) My college swimming career wasn't that great anyway. So it's not like we're arguing from some anomaly on my side.
2.) I never made even close to minimum wage while swimming.
3.) I might have been better served financially by just studying or working (but then that sets off a whole different reality too).
4.) I might have been better at a different sport. I just happened to be swimming when puberty hit.
5.) I might have gotten a black swim coach that I connected with better and had a better career.

That’s not the point. The point is that whites disproportionately benefitted as compared to blacks. Whether we would all be better off or worse off economically in general if we hadn’t had slavery is immaterial to the discussion of reparations. The issue is that group A is viewed as disadvantaged as compared to group B and as a direct consequence of the actions of group B.

I’m not in favor of reparations, but let’s be honest about the conversation.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

The problem is while MAYBE you can pin the disadvantages on B, you are asking for reparations paid for by B, C, D, E through Z.

Yes, you have. And they are all bullshit. Somehow you have rationalized that white people (you) were harmed by slavery, just like the black slaves. Geez!



Damn. Trying to deny the obvious. You're too much. I suppose denying blacks the opportunity to play football or basketball wouldn't have impacted the number of whites playing it instead. Please, stop with this silly bullshit.




And you didn't why? Because blacks were systematically prohibited from the sport. Hence, no coaches in the pipeline.

Somehow, in every scenario, you have figured out how slavery, or jim crow, harmed you. You are the victim of slavery. Like I said, STOP DIGGING!!!

I was responding to a particular argument. You'd have to go back some ways to find it. But, yes, that was the point. It may not be the point you want to argue, or even the point you think we should be arguing, but I was arguing the point as it was made.

Look. I've obviously triggered you by showing you arguments that go against a deeply held belief of yours. I'm sorry, but that's not enough to silence me.

There are a few things I've noticed about you in our short time here:

1.) You went for an ad hominem attack in our very first exchange.
2.) You're now misquoting what I wrote.
3.) You seem to purposely misunderstand simple concepts (and I have no reason to believe you have a learning disability).

These traits are the traits of someone who's not up to arguing in good faith. I've only got so much time to waste. So, I'm going to ignore you. And, yes, I may continue digging, or writing, or speaking my mind as I do it.
I'd suggest you report me if you don't like it.
One way or another it will save us both time.

That's also a problem. Like I said, I'm not in favor of reparations.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Understood. I've been tracking the discussion. My point is that this entire line of discussion is a distraction, because whether or not whites (or the country as a whole) would be better off if slavery hadn't existed misses the point of the reparations discussion.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I think it was in the Das Kapital where Marx argues that slavery is the least efficient form of labor as the slave has no incentive to put any more work than he/she has to. Sure, a slave will work, otherwise he/she will be killed or not fed but that itself is not an incentive to put any extra work into the job, it is not motivation to perform better. If you work for money and if there is a chance for promotion workers tend to be more motivated and inventive. Just some thoughts from a book we had to read long time ago.

I don't think that is right. I think Marx misunderstood slavery and concluded it was a prerequisite to capitalism.

http://www.sojournertruth.net/marxslavery.pdf

And this:

We have long since dismissed Marx’s misunderstanding of slavery, but we have not reckoned sufficiently with the consequences of his error. Marx’s failure to subject slavery to historical analysis led him away from an obvious interpretive conclusion: that slave-trading was analogous to the capitalist labor market because it gave birth to the capitalist mode of production. Oliver Cox pointed to this interpretive misstep when he observed, in Capitalism as a System (1964), that Marx “begins his analysis of the nature of capitalism almost where he might have ended it; and as is commonly the case in classical economics, he relegates as subsidiary the very things which should have been the center of his study. . . . His ‘primitive accumulation’ is none other than fundamentally capitalist accumulation.”

http://bostonreview.net/...hat-slavery-tells-us

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Very interesting analysis of of Marx's thoughts from a historic distance. Thanks for the links.

Not going to report you.

Not going to ignore you.

Am going to keep calling out your bullshit though.

I think SG and VC succintly captured the essence of the argument. And the whole argument about reparations is absurd. The US is a huge melting pot. Especially now, centuries later, *no one* here can definitively claim they uniquely belong to group A-Z enough to claim they're due, or they owe. That's part of the USA and being an American. Can't we all just get along.



. . . although the heated tangential discussions can be entertaining :-)

According to Lindsay Graham, it’s what we’re getting in the latest stimulus bill:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...ck-farmers-stimulus/

‘A little-known element of President Biden’s massive stimulus relief package would pay billions of dollars to disadvantaged farmers — benefiting Black farmers in a way that some experts say no legislation has since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Of the $10.4 billion in the American Rescue Plan that will support agriculture, approximately half would go to disadvantaged farmers, according to estimates from the Farm Bureau, an industry organization. About a quarter of disadvantaged farmers are Black. The money would provide debt relief as well as grants, training, education and other forms of assistance aimed at acquiring land.“

Lindsay sure knows his audience.

‘During an interview on Fox News, Graham criticized the bill for including the provision and others that he argued are not related to the coronavirus pandemic. He also called the assistance to farmers “reparations,” a term referring to compensation to descendants of slaves.

“Let me give an example of something that really bothers me. In this bill, if you are a farmer, your loan will be forgiven up to 120% of your loan, not 100%, but 120%, if you’re socially disadvantaged, if you’re African-American, some other minority. But if you’re White person, if you are a White woman, no forgiveness. That’s reparations. What does that got to do with Covid?,” Graham said on “Sunday Morning Futures.”

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Is he correct that's what the bill has in it? If so, he is correct, it has nothing to do with covid-19 and it's picking choosing who to give money to based on the color of their skin. If Farmers have been hurt by covid-19 and I'm sure they have, then they should be given relief based on the fact that they're farmers and not based on the color of their skin. And hopefully it's directed towards small farmers and not large conglomerates.

---

I miss YaHey

I was just looking up the amount it would cost for reparations after it was being discussed on Bill Maher Friday night. The number that came up in multiple articles (I assume from the same basic source) was $12 - $13T. That would mean just under $300K per descendant of slaves.

That is never going to happen. If that is the number that is the goal then the people pushing this are sabotaging themselves.

I'm not sure what number could get support but $300k each isn't it.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

The answer to your question is in the post your are replying to. And the answer is no, Lindsey is not correct. He is blowing the racist dog whistle very loud. He is telling people to be upset that 25% of the disadvantaged farmers that qualify for the program happen to be black and even thought the majority of people that qualify are white, he calls it reparations. Lindsey Graham is being very dishonest in order to make racists mad, which I think we should all agree is bad.

The aid with up to 120% of indebtedness for minority farmers apparently has no income or asset test. It is simply based on the color of one's skin.

an excerpt from an article about the relief:

Under the provision, Black, Indigenous, Hispanic and and other farmers of color can have up to 120 percent of their outstanding federal farm loans forgiven. (The extra 20 percent is to offset the federal tax burden associated with such debt relief.) A related provision includes another $1 billion to help those same farmers with training, education and other forms of assistance acquiring land. Included in that second batch of cash is funding for a newly created commission on racial equity at the US Department of Agriculture

I've read this description in other articles as well.

The answer is not really in the post he replied to. The post describes a bunch of aid going to farmers, but it doesn't talk to the specifics of the relief measure Sen Graham mentioned. Do you know if this specific measure provides different benefit to minority farmers? It's been described that way in several sources.

Here's what the bill actually says:




The definition of "socially disadvantaged" according to 7 USC 2279(a) is:

Sounds to me like Sen Graham is describing pretty much what the law says.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

If Lindsey Graham does not think this is related to covid, then why did Lindsey Graham vote for the previous Covid-19 economic relief bill that included 9.2 billion that 97% went to white farmers? For some reason he was very supportive of that.

It is just laughable (in a sad sad way) that a Bill about COVID relief can include a bridge to Canada; a tunnel in S.F. and a all out assault upon our collective pocket books.

LBJs Great Society already paid in full reparations--and look what such a noble collective endeavor has brought us? I'd argue that the nuclear black family was much better off before LBJs Great Society than they are here today.

I recall School House Rock "How a Bill becomes a Law" I liked that much more than my Constitutional Law and Law of Land Warfare classes in college. Maybe someone can make a School House Rock on "How a Executive Order Trumps Law until Congress & the Supremes Find Their Balls?"

---

Steve

Did that bill give money to farmers specifically based on the color of their skin or ethnicity? The article states that white farmers got 97% of all funding, and states that black farmers only make up 1.7% of U.S. farmers. It also says the money was tied to production levels. So did "black farmers" writ large, get less money because there are fewer of them and the run much smaller farms with less production? If so, sounds about right.

Whether this is COVID pertinent, I think we've long since learned that Congress doesn't give two shits if a measure has anything to do with the actual purpose of a specific law. If they can get it in there, they will.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

True. But I understand the game theory. All that stuff is in there because there's no way it passes the filibuster hurdle if it's not in the budget reconciliation bill. Biden-Pelosi-Schumer have basically three options:

1) Basically pass nothing except a basic Federal budget and maybe dramatically pared-down COVID-19 bill.
2) Go nuclear and get rid of the filibuster
3) Take the middle ground and use reconciliation to pass the COVID-19 and a bunch of other things in one shot. But all the extra stuff has to be budget-related, as determined by the Senate parliamentarian who famously shot down the inclusion of a Federal minimum wage addition.

They took the middle ground.

Lindsay is right. But I also don't have the slightest doubt that if Trump had won and the Senate was still split 50/50, the GOP would absolutely be using reconciliation to pass a GOP wish list.

You are as much of a liar as Lindsey Graham. Do you even look up this stuff before you reply and say that white farmers are eligible as well. Then when called on it, you say "but, but.....Lindsey Graham also did this one time......"

Who can take anything you say seriously?

It's called the

The Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act

https://www.agriculture.com/...ally-get-debt-relief

And, while one can argue that "reparations" may be a strong word to describe it, the crafters of it even described it as payment for past inequities in farming and it's based on race. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck.....

Right. 1/2 goes to disadvantaged farmers, and 1/4 of that 1/2 to black farmers.

As I said, he knows his audience.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Can I declare myself as a person of color? I'd like some of that 'free' money they're handing out.

---

Steve

Yes and no. There's a Senate bill (S.278) by that name that got assigned to committee back in February. But it's not what was voted on.

The bill being put on the President's desk is called the "American Rescue Plan Act of 2021."

Sections 1005 and 1006 appear to have been - in part - lifted from the draft of S.278, but the term "Farmers of Color" is gone, replaced with "Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers" (a term which apparently existed before this bill was drafted).

God damnit I am a socially disadvantaged farmer. I want some of this free money President Biden is handing out!

One need only look on this very forum to see how I'm being persecuted.

---

Steve

The aid is for "disadvantaged farmers" which is not a racial group. Just because this group contains some % of African Americans doesn't make it targeted based on race. By your insane logic, if we have programs to help poor people and poor people are disproportionately black it is "racially targeted aid". Well, if you want to play that game, the Trump tax cuts were "racially targeted" at whites and dwarfed this stimulus bill (because the Trump tax cuts were not a one time thing, they give away hundreds of billions every year until we change the tax laws).

About 70% of Americans are white? Do we call programs that everyone is eligible for "White Stimulus programs" because a large percentage of whites benefit from these programs?

If the Republicans want to criticize the scope of this stimulus package, that is a fair criticism and should be heard. But as far as calling contents of the aid package (no matter how much of a scope expansion they may represent) "reparations" it is truly disgusting race-baiting. I't talking lower than Al Sharpton.

That's exactly what they did to pass their tax cut in 2017.

Please elaborate on these reparations. I am not familiar with them.

no problem amigo

Go read up on the amount of tax payer wealth that has been paid into public housing, vouchers, food stamps, ebt cards, etc etc.

Lyndon Baines Johnson was in no way a good man. But he embodied the modern Democrat Party.

---

Steve

While I will agree that the term reparations should not have been used, by the definition in post number 133, I don't believe any white people will qualify for this Aid.

---

I miss YaHey

Disadvantaged farmers is defined in the bill. Educate yourself on the bill. Disadvantaged farmers as defined does not include white farmers.

Look a few posts up. There is a very nice summary that walks you through. It's crafty how if you only read a part of it you would come to your conclusion.

Not so fast young padowan---when you can snatch this grasshopper from my hand you will be ready.

So i can refer back to my time of racial discrimination on Hawaii and i am now a disadvantaged farmer since i've been the recipient of racial animus?

---

Steve

Democrat Gary Cohn's tax plan...

Yea. I'm hearing you. Unfortunately, the historical definition of racism no longer applies. It's been redefined. Come on, you know? With white privilege and all......

It almost sounds like you believe the only recipients of those programs are descendants of slaves. This was your response to LBJ using the Great Society to pay reparations in full, wasn’t it? You forgot to give credit to subsequent Republican admins that corrected this Democrat atrocity. Kidding, both Nixon and Ford actually expanded the programs. Seeing as the recipients included quite a few of their rural constituents it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

What is "ethnic"? Are there no white "ethnic groups"? This is a terrible definition, it can mean almost anything, which means it almost means nothing.

Steve Hawley wrote:

no problem amigo

Go read up on the amount of tax payer wealth that has been paid into public housing, vouchers, food stamps, ebt cards, etc etc.

Lyndon Baines Johnson was in no way a good man. But he embodied the modern Democrat Party.

Steve, I'm disappointed in you. This is an uninformed take.


First, White people make up the majority of those on food stamps or WIC:


https://www.huffpost.com/...mographics_n_6771938


https://www.fns.usda.gov/...enrollment-data-2016


Second, millions of Black people are NOT in public housing or on food stamps. Therefore, if they are paying taxes, it is going to support programs that support White people than any other group.


Let's deal in facts or not at all.

brother

i am still trying to figure out how i can document my 'racism' encounters on Oahu. Since I'm a white guy, it's not a priori thing like my brown or black brothers. So i am somewhat disadvantaged here. Just want some of this free $$ President Biden is throwing around for disadvantaged farmers.

---

Steve

Not for the particular argument. But in the Huff Post breakdown it seems that out of all races that receive food stamps, the percentage on food stamps represents half of that race's total percentage of the population. Except for blacks/AA in which case it is double. They represent 13% of the total population but represent 26% of those who use food stamps.

Whites: 76% of total pop but 40% of food stamps.
Black/AA: 13% vs 26%
Hispanic: 18.5% vs 10%
Asian: 5.9% vs 2.1%
Native American: 1.3% vs 1.2% (about equal)

Steve's argument was that these programs were reparations that had been paid to Black people over the last fifty years or so. The above clearly illustrate that Blacks are not the sole recipients of the benefits and many Black Americans have paid plenty into the system without receiving any of these benefits.

The programs exist to serve all citizens, not solely Blacks. And certainly not as a form of reparations.

Pretty bold move on your part there?

I made no mention of race nor do i intend to. Don't give a shit whether those sucking at the public tit are white, black or yellow. We need to give them a hand up and then get them off the rolls. Yes, I do believe that Great Society legislation was very detrimental to the nuclear black family. Universal basic income (another Democrat endeavor) will just create more of a dependent class of broken families (irregardless of ethnicity) that they can count on for sure votes. It sickens me.

---

Steve

Of course the argument for reparations is that the centuries of slavery and denial of rights has denied blacks generational wealth which is what causes them to be inordinately impoverished and on food stamps.

Steve's comments are the first I have heard welfare programs referred to as some sort of reparations. That is an odd take on them.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

This is a thread about Slavery Reparations.

You referenced The Great Society policies as a form of reparations.

Slaves in America were Black.

What? You got me there?

Of course Great Society Legislation was designed almost entirely to repair or restore the lives of Black Americans. I didn't address it in my post as it's entirely transparent to the casual observer.

So with the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been spent on Great Society legislation---entirely to help/aide/transform the lives of Black Americans. How're we doing. Is it enough?


"DYNOMITE"

---

Steve

Come on now? The first SNAP/EBT/"Food Stamp" program began back in in '39 under a noted socialist name of FDR whom my grandparents hated almost as much as Tojo.

---

Steve

In my defense, my first line was "not for the particular argument." I see now more where you were coming from. I thought that while it does serve all, it serves blacks/AA much more than any other race. But in retrospect it seems like thats irrelevant to this discussion at hand. Carry on.

Yea I saw I was a bit off there.

Source?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

He’s already addressed this. “Go read up on it” because you are clearly not a “casual observer”. For being such a historian one was to wonder what his motive is for framing it as making good on full reparations.

So let me get this straight. Below are your contributions to this thread and then you respond to a post citing that reparations (a word that has specific meaning in the context of this discussion ) have been paid in full. Somehow you expect us to believe you never mentioned race? The casual observer would disagree.

“I'd argue that the nuclear black family was much better off before LBJs Great Society than they are here today. “

“Can I declare myself as a person of color? I'd like some of that 'free' money they're handing out. “

“God damnit I am a socially disadvantaged (context of discussion) farmer. I want some of this free money President Biden is handing out!”

“So i can refer back to my time of racial discrimination on Hawaii and i am now a disadvantaged farmer since i've been the recipient of racial animus?”

“Since I'm a white guy, it's not a priori thing like my brown or black brothers. So i am somewhat disadvantaged here.”

replying to no one in particular, I googled (I know, wicked scientific) Great Society Legislation and the majority of the hits related to the "main goals" of the program were "the elimination of poverty and racial injustice"...I'd bet dollars to donuts that if this legislation had been rolled in today's political climate instead of the 60's, Graham and the rest of race dog whistlers in Washington would be shouting "reparations" loud and clear.

---

"one eye doubles my eyesight, so things don't look half bad" John Hiatt

At least they thought Tojo was a little worse than FDR.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

the hatred was pretty awesome to observe

Once i graduated from West Point I went out to Calif to visit my Grands. If I had driven up in a japanese vehicle i think my grandfather would have turned me away. Fortunately for me, back then I was driving a IHC Scout.

---

Steve

Given the scope of the program one has to dig deep to cherry pick reparations from it. I wonder if the same level of disdain is held for say, all of the rural farmers who benefitted from it.

I could write a dissertation on the subject and it would be casually dismissed by the LR left here. So why should I make the effort?

YOU have zero desire to look at any source I might reference. Your call for 'a source' is a transparent dodge in a arguement you don't like and don't think is going your way.

In the case some other readers are wondering about source material for my ideas here I'd steer then towards Doris Kearns Goodwin's award winning bio of LBJ and the Great Society

https://www.amazon.com/...ding=UTF8&btkr=1

---

Steve

I guess my point was, that in this political climate, as soon as the race dog whistlers see "eliminating racial injustice" the response is "reparations". In the 60's, I'd like to believe that congress and the house (and LBJ) actually thought these programs would actually accomplish what the intent of them was, and not, cynically, just a massive "vote grab", amongst other things.

---

"one eye doubles my eyesight, so things don't look half bad" John Hiatt

UBI is the most efficient and least detrimental way to ensure that all Americans receive healthcare, food and a roof over our head. We are wealthy enough as a country that those basic things are rights. And in practice, we already provide those things, just through very inefficient and demoralizing avenues. UBI can eliminate the "welfare experience" from welfare. Many researchers have concluded that a lot of welfare dependency is a result of the difficulties in administering the programs. Getting and maintaining the benefits becomes a job.

I don't think you are wrong about the detrimental effect of welfare. I acknowledge that that believing healthcare, food and shelter are rights is controversial to some. But if we are going to have welfare - and we are - we should do it right.

You quoted me, but sounds like you addressed BarryP’s post asking for a source, although you may consider our inquiries similar. I won’t speak for Barry or anyone else, but I feel like I have a lot to learn from you which is why I’ve posed questions. Again, personally, I read a ~600 page book based on a recommendation and your approval of content so I don’t think I’m in the boat of not caring. That said, my general experience is that academics don’t like to be questioned by someone whose knowledge base they consider to be inferior. It is the internet and tone can be deceiving, but you give off that vibe. Thank you for the book recommendation.

color me impressed!

what book did you read upon my recommendation if i may ask?

also. Doris K Goodwin's book on LBJ and the Great Society is her first work. It's really a work of passion and she wrote much better later in life as a historian---such as in "Team of Rivals" but this one was from her heart.

---

Steve

You can keep repeating this lie as often as you would like to. The majority of the money that has been spent on Great Society legislation has gone to White Americans.

Scapegoating black people is inaccurate and lazy. Do better. Or keep telling lies. Your choice.

Relentless Strike. If memory serves, someone else recommended and you said it was indeed a good read and you were surprised the author had access to some of the material.

Ok Thanks for response

Yes. That's a good book and I am indeed surprised at some of the info the author puts out. My understanding from being "read on" to various programs is that I'd have been sent to Leavenworth were i to have said some of the things he said?

I hint around here about working for "guys I used to know" My understanding is I'll go to jail should I be specific or speak with specificity on some of the missions we did. How Sean Naylor got away with revealing much of this is something of a mystery to me?

Hope you enjoyed the read and learned something along the journey

---

Steve

How do they define "Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers" . Is there any objective test? Do they define a criteria in the bill?

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

RTFB!

It's defined in USC 2279. Still kind of vague in that law. But it's law that's been in effect for over a decade (with changes along the way) - the point being that they didn't just make up the term this month.

Socially disadvantaged checks out for you.

You're also a veteran, so could qualify for the provisions that help veteran farmers.

You'll need to build a new receiving dock for the Brinks trucks they're going to be backing onto your property.

Well at least I have learned what RTFB is. Reading the definition it is pretty vague. Maybe we could refine it as people who feel they have been hard done by. Kinda subjective. At least with aboriginal one can go back and have some quasi objective criteria. I don't know how the blunt instrument that is the US gov't feels they can fix things under these kind of rubrics. As we have seen in another thread about unemployment cheques they can't even identify it they are paying money to real people.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

1) Great Society Legislation fell short because LBJ failed in Viet Nam. That was and is Doris K-G's thesis. Anything else and you (or me) is reading what we want to read.
2) Conflating Great Society Legislation with the Civil Rights Acts was important for Nixon success in the 68 election. This is the southern strategy in a nutshell. Dismantle social legislation by implying it unfairly provides economic benefit to minorities.
3) In case you doubt point two, one only needs to look at what you've posted on this thread. You feel the easiest way to make your point is to point out how unfair it is to you as a white person. As others have said, the actual numbers don't support your hypothetisis.