for or against slavery reparations and why?

This issue is addressed in the green party platform, but to my knowledge is not touched by Democrats. Certainly it is a divisive issue, but one which crops up from time to time in different places. Should the descendents of slaves in this country be offered reparations? If so, who gets the money and where does it come from? Who has to pay? Of course there are no former slaves still alive, but discrimination still exists and effects the lives of millions today. Should they be awarded reparations? What about immigrants from Africa since slavery ended. They suffer from the discrimination too, but are not descendants of slaves. Do they get reparations? Do only people whose ancestors owned slaves or profited in some way from slavery to pay for this? Or is it that we all should, since collectively our country profited from it? And of course too, it the reason given it to help with ending discrimination, then what of the discrimination suffered by other groups?

I've been thinking about this for a week since seeing it on the green party platform. I have mixed feelings about it and not sure where I stand. If there were some way this would end discrimination I would be all for it. I don't think that will happen though, and I'm afraid it could divide us and not solve much of anything but instead be just a band-aid.

What are your thoughts DUers?

I would also agree that black people still suffer from the effects of slavery. I would also agree that the United States benefited from slavery, in the short term. I am against reparations for many reasons.

First of all it makes no sense, why should the United States Government and the its people by held personally accountable? This is a federation of states, not an empire. We eventually fought a war against the states that had slavery, and the current power in the United States resisted slavery, to the extent that we took military action against Slavers before the civil war. The United States Government of today bears little responsibility for the actions of Slavery. And what little we did was paid back in the Civil War. The people who held black people in slavery no longer exist.

Secondly how would we determine the reparations? Do black today not benefit from living in the United States. They are American Citizens, not Black Citizens, there is no such thing.

Thirdly, as Chris Rock so eloquently pointed out, “When was the last time you say a Native American family at Dennys? You didn’t they are all dead.” Blacks are hardly the most abused people in the United States, we don’t hear as much talk about Native American Reparations because we killed them all. Slavery vs. Genocide? One of those is worse than the other.

The Constitution, as originally written and ratified by ALL states, allowed slavery (and considered slaves as 3/5's a person). So, ALL of the US was complicit in it.

As for black people being citizens and benefitting...you have heard about Jim Crow laws haven't you? Not really benefitting much during that period in my opinion. And again, ALL of the U.S. (as confirmed in Plessy v. Ferguson, 1892) was complicit in that.

As for the Chris Rock statement, for one, he isn't a political or moral authority last time I checked (and I like the guy). Two, you picked the wrong analogy with the horrible history of discrimination that Denny's has with blacks. Three, if one is worse than the other, does that nullify the experience of the lesser? I think not.

I am aware that the states were originally "complacent" as you said. I do not think that is a fair description though, as I am sure you are aware they were forced to drop the issue. If they didn’t, then no US. The northern power base also did everything they could to stop slavery. To include forcing succession on the South. Be it purposeful or not their tariffs to punish the south caused the Civil war. I don’t know what more you expect the United States to have down.

I think this is really the key point of contention, to what degree is the US responsible for slavery? As I said, I feel not very much anymore. The US is a democracy, and the people that comprise it are no longer guilty of the crime of complacency. I do agree that we benefit from slavery though, to an extent. Nonetheless, I think on both sides we have paid a terrible price. I believe the US has suffered form slavery more than it is has benefited. As I said, we are all Citizens now.

I am aware of Jim Crow, but in the year 2005 black people benefit from living in the US. I don’t see how you can argue with that. I don’t see how bringing up the past, slavery, is really productive for either side.

As for your third point you are seeing ghosts where there are none.

There are a lot more pressing issues to deal with that punishing the innocent for the crimes of others. I think we need to address the socioeconomic barriers that keep all people in the US down, nor just blacks. I think it is time that both sides forget about the past and focus on the future.

Nebraska. There is a whole different world out there, believe me. We can't keep sweeping it under the rug. I am not seeing ghosts. But, thanks for trying to assume what my experiences are.

And, by the way, I said "complicit", not "complacent". They have entirely different meanings, so please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

I am not sure what you thought I meant by "Ghosts". I meant that you were interpreting my statements as an attempt to cheapen the crime of slavery. The dangers of the internet.

And I am not really sure how where I live has anything to do with it. Talk about assuming about experience. I just live here, I didn't grow up here. Your right, this place isn't the most compassionate about these issues. I assure though Nebraska has nothing to do with my point of view.

for snapping at you. I appreciate the response back.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Yes, very strange indeed.....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I just call it "morality".

The Civil Rights Act was not passed until 1964. It's dangerous NOT to look back, as the Holocaust survivors have told us.

One must never forget.

between remembering the past and learning from it and living in the past and blaming everything on events no longer of your control.

I'm talking about problems (and possible solutions) that exist today.

If people don't earn what they get they won't respect what they get, or themselves. How will money taken and distributed arbitrarily help anyone?

didn't earn what they got (and are still to this day benefitting from). That's the problem.

You also forgot to mention that WHITE Americans wrote a Constitution making slavery legal, and wrote a Constitution that made slaves 3/5's of a person. You also forgot to mention that WHITE Americans passed Congressional acts in the antebellum era that furthered the spread of slavery. You also forgot to mention that WHITE Americans ruled that segregation (as well as poll taxes, etc.) was Constitutionally legal, thus extending the "non-citizenship" status of blacks another 70 years.

Oh, and then there is this article.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-reparations.htm


Its amazing how much we forget.

Slavery is a horrible practice and should never be the fate of any person. Indentured servitude was no better. Unfortunately, both were practiced on every continent on earth prior to the 1900's and it was "legal" (defined as not being against the law in countries where it occurred). Thank goodness we (humanity) have wiped out slavery in almost every country. Today it is practiced only in Africa and some Southeast Asian countries.

Think about it. If slaves counted for a whole person in those days, that means more repsentation for slave states in the House. Keeping them at 3/5 means keeping slave states from being over represented.

was a bad thing. We can agree on that, I hope.

It always comes down to where are we willing to draw the line? While no one suffered as much as the slaves, we have as a country discriminated and taken from many. Removing the Japanese during WWII, destroying their livelihoods and businesses. Forcing the Indians from their land and so on.

I agree with you that reparations would seem like a misguided, and often misused band aid. I think that we need to become more strongly united in creating laws against discrimination in any of its many forms...thus ending, perhaps, the need for reparation talk. i.e. Equaling the playing field may end the feeling of being kept down.

Why do I feel as if I just posted in a circle?

My family arrived into the United States in 1892. My family has no history of owning slaves.

Just playing devil's advocate here. I am not a proponent of reparations, per se. :hi:

Sherman burned Atlanta, and other cities. Plantations homes were destroyed.

The slaves did NOT build any of the north or the western states. So you statement that the country was built on their backs is false.

Do you really believe that all the whites in the country didn't work and the blacks did all the work in the whole country?

I'm not for reparations, but I'm also not for denying all that they did. Did whites work? Yes. Were they owned? Only the indentured servants. :hi:

I found one ancestor who owned slaves when I was doing genealogy research. I don't feel like I'm living any better because of it. Nor do I feel guilt over it. I didn't personally do it. I am ashamed for him and for our country but think there might be better ways to make up for the wrongs than reparations. This is why I support affirmative action. Having said that, I also realize affirmative action has not solved anything. I don't know that anything, including reparartions, could.

Granted, retribution and reperation have slightly different meanings, but the spirit behind them is the same:to correct the wrong.

AA hasn't "solved anything" but it has been a catalyst for positive change. That's why the Democratic party supports it.

The list of victims goes on and on. What say we just take all the country back and call it even.

I guess I'll go for reparations because some of my ancestors were sent here under a transportation sentence, then denied jobs and education.

There's not a single group in the world that has not been enslaved and oppressed, at least in part, in the history of the world. Let's all pay ourselves and move on.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No one questions those people were wronged and many of their descendants still suffer from discrimination resulting from that era, but it is only one group, and I can't imagine any fair way for reparations.

Working people represented wealth escaping into paychecks, so they were used up, worn out, and dumped with no pension (something we're on our way back to). There was no compensation for being injured or killed on the job. Their labor is represented by the gaudy opulence in Newport, RI.

There is probably no way a free but abused worker would ever have traded places with a slave, though. At least the worker knew he couldn't be sold away from his family, or they from him, although his injury from a careless employer could cause them to starve.

However, to ignore the labor history of this country by focusing only on the slave labor part is to ignore a lot of reality of where great wealth comes from, and the human cost of amassing it.

When you start talking about reparations, these are the people you need to focus on, the rich who parasite themselves on the labor of many, and increase human misery as much as they can to amass more wealth.

They were also seperated from their families and forced to work for free as prisoners.

And note, I did not insult you, but your assertion. It is just plain historically wrong, but gets repeated ad nauseum. Therefore, the assertion itself is mind-numbingly ignorant.

Once and for all, no, slave masters did not keep their slaves alive because they were an investment. You can repeat this idiocy over and over again, which was initially proposed by racist historians early in the century and picked up by conservative/racist economists like Fogel & Engerman.

But all the empirical historical studies show that slaves lived short, brutish, nasty lives -- much shorter than free workers. They may have been an investment, but one that could be "depreciated" in a few years, so there was no need to keep them alive. In all of the new world -- including Brazil, coastal areas of Latin America, Cuba and other Caribean islands, and the US South, there wer almost NO DEMOGRAPHICALLY SELF SUSTAINING SLAVE POPULATIONS. The only exceptions were a few counties of the upper south states -- and many of the slaves "bred" there were sold "down the river" to certain death in the lower south. This is so obvious and so accepted by professional historians, that one has to question why the opposite is ever repeated by anyone other than neo-confederate, modern pro-slavery racists. The fact that you repeat this libel leads to the conclusion that this is exactly what you are.

Not the least of which is that it's absurd for today's African Americans to pay themselves. How do they do that, you ask? Simple.

Payment either comes directly from tax dollars or indirectly from tax dollars in the form of tax credits. Either way, there's likely to be a reduction in entitlements to pay the debt so all poor suffer monetarily from reparations. African Americans pay taxes. Why should they pay in part for actions no one alive today had any part in commiting? I could go on, but you get my drift.

What about those whose families emigrated to the U.S after 1865? What about those whose fmailies never owned slaves or supported the system? Most Northerners (despite the fact that the first 11 slaves were imported to and owned in what is now NYC) and the vast majority of Southerners fit this category. Also, what about the free blacks who owned slaves? (Look it up, there were quite a few, especially in Louisiana.)

There's far more, but I'm not going to write a book.

The peculiar institution was wrong on too many levels to enumerate. The same can be said of reparations. Lastly, for potential flamers: as a matter of degree, the institution was far worse.

still lasts today. At the very least, it lasted well into the 1960s.

As for the fact that no one alive today having supported the system. There are hundreds of companies, Sears Roebuck being one, that were built on the backs of slaves. Current shareholders are benefitting to this day.

<snip>Sears, Roebuck and Co. has over a century full of history and incredible achievements. In 1886, a Chicago jewelry company shipped an order of gold filled watches to a Minneapolis jewelry store. When the jewelry store refused delivery a station agent by the name of Richard Sears decided to purchase the shipment and try to sell them to other station agents. This proved to be successful for Richard Sears, and in 1886, Richard Sears began a company known as R.W. Sears Watch Company in Minneapolis. A year later in 1887, Sears moved his new found business to Chicago, and placed an advertisement in the newspaper for a watchmaker. The ad received a response from an Indian man by the name of Alvah C. Roebuck. Sears hired Roebuck and in 1893 the corporate name of the firm became Sears, Roebuck and Co.

http://academic.emporia.edu/smithwil/00spmg456/eja/pieschl.html

Yes, there were companies that made money as a result of slavery in America. Please try to pick on the right ones. Bill them for reparations now and everyone, including potential recipients of said reparations, will pay them back every penny, plus interest, in higher prices. If youou want to avoid those companies, go ahead. It won't make on bit of difference. The economic web is so interwoven that even a mom and pop grocery in Maine has som economic impact in Hawaii. If you don't believe that, take an economics class.

Okay, when we find the companies (as you suggest), we will bill all past and current shareholders (including mutual fund holders), all past and current employees (including their pension plans, if they exist), and all customers (since they benefitted in lower prices). That should cover everyone.

As you suggest, the economy is interwoven. Thus, society as a whole even today benefits from the uncompensated labor from a hundred and fifty years ago. Thanks for helping prove my point.

society as a whole will pay for repparations. That's only one of my rubs with the idea, but it's a good one.

reparations under any such program be required to pay as well? It's a circular, untenable mess any way you slice it.

reparations.

But, since we (still) have a progressive system of taxation, I don't see where the problem would be theoretically. I do agree that it would be complicated.

Undertake a careful study of the definite economic impact and probable social impact of such a scheme and you may find that it's an enormously counterproductive idea.

That's why I haven't advocated for it.

Well, there are living victims of "virtual slavery". The prison gang institutions of this century ensnared black people into servitude for crimes as petty as sleeping in a park.

Such a lawsuit would have red states as targets and would have REAL LIVE defendents that could show damages.

,...a purer form of democracy?

:shrug:

As a female who has suffered first hand discrimination myself, I want a reparation that's inclusive and helps our people in a broad way.

It's easy to be against giving something back to some people who gave so much to this country if you live in a bubble.Try waking up as an African American someday in this country.We have done nothing but rip them off for 400 years while they have given us more than we realize. I say yes to reperations in the form
freedom and respect and afirmative action plus repaying labor costs in the form of cash.The neocons are into slavery,they should cut the checks for the big payback to everyone they rip off.
People like chimp get to go to Yale and Harvard for alot of reasons like privatized prisons and thier part in thinking they are a master race,well there is no master race.

White people have been ripped off nearly as much for almost the same time period.

The reparation for all forms of both slavery AND wage slavery is social welfare, social security and public education. Hopefully in the future, it will contain health care as well.

For my part, I'd rather spend my time pushing for a benefit that benefits EVERYONE than a benefit that only helps a minority. It would be a HELL of a lot easier to pass.

:nuke:

belonged to the CSA

Should be paid out of funds from any state that Legally permitted slavery to exist within their boundaries. Not just the of Confederacy. That would also include the District of Columbia.

As far as I know, the thought never crossed our minds. If reparations are made to the families of former slaves, the next thing will be reparations to women who were historically repressed, then fat people who are still victims of discrimination, and on, and on, and on, and on. It was a shameful period in our history, but at some point we have to go forward and call the past the past. Money doesn't solve everything.

None of my ancestors were here before 1876. Before that, WE were the serfs in Russia.

For one thing, racial oppression was not ended in 1863. I thought everyone knew about the Jim Crow era, instilled by the United States Supreme Court in 1892.

As for non-owners not benefitting:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-reparations.htm

My people all lived in Kansas. Ever been? I never saw a black person until I moved to Denver many years later. Hard to oppress people you can't see.

<snarkiness off>

My spouse's family of several generations lived in Kansas since the 1880's, and many still live there.

But my branch moved to Wamego later on.

Its called voting Republican.

That is not the issue. The question was reparations for chattle slaver. That institution ended with the XIII Amendment to the Constitution.

And, it's aftermath to the present day. It's effects are still felt in the pervasive racism that exists in this country. Kinda like saying "I'm sorry I ran over your kid but, hey, quit complaining, you can have another one."

White America stole their labor, their dignity, their lives, their families, their opportunities, and then kept doing so right up to the present.

It's not like we're giving them a present. We owe them.

BTW. My mother immigrated to this country in 1919, so spare me the "but, we didn't do it" cop-out.

pockets in either taxes or higher costs of goods and services. My family never owning slaves it a good copout to me. We have made great strides in race relations but there is much more to do. In my opinion (and you know what they say about opinions) reparations would end up sending race relations back to the very beginning.

As for never owning slaves being a copout, please read the following:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-reparations.htm

Or, their relations with White America.

there were discrete persons harmed (themselves) in discrete ways, and there were tangible defendants whose conduct could be proven and shown to be harmful.

Slavery is a different kettle of fish.

White America stole their labor, their dignity, their lives, their families, their opportunities, and then kept doing so right up to the present.

Apparently a small part of Black America did the same.

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

"In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4)."

So, who owes whom what in this case?

And, a small part of the Native American population served in the army while they were committing genocide against native Americans.

Of course, some blacks owned slaves. If you read a bit further, some of them bought slaves from whites to save them from brutal masters. Some bought family members from their owners.

Does that make slavery a black institution? I think not.

Black slavery was instituted by whites for monetary gain. Which it achieved. To find a few anecdotes about blacks owning blacks is naive, at best. Kinda like the anecdotal evidence of kindly massa's.

The fact remains that people were robbed of their freedom. Try reading some of the books of Ira Berliner, or "Slave Narratives" that were gathered during the '30s.

Not to mention the aftermath after reconstruction was halted when de-facto slavery was reintroduced through violence and legislation. The Civil Rights movement didn't occur because the south had become enlightened and was seeking justice and equality.

It's an unpaid bill, long overdue.

Compared to how many slaves held prisoner by WHITES?

Shall we end Affirmative Action because Oprah is successful too?

Shall we end Affirmative Action because Oprah is successful too?

I find affirmative action in this time and place to be an extremly racist practice and before you start giving me any shit about "your just a pissed off whiteman" dont even bother I'm Hispanic on my fathers side and white on my mothers. We should all look around us colorblind.

Affirmative Action applies to all minorities including women.

We DO NOT HAVE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. Check the facts. We are not a colorblind society.

I support Equal Opportunity FOR ALL which happens to be a core value of the Dem party.

My interpretation of your sentence says it all right there.

I support Equal Opportunity FOR ALL which happens to be a core value of the Dem party.

For all I would hope means ALL,EVERYONE on our small green planet the continued use of affirmative action makes an advantage for one race over another so yes I WILL SAY IT IS A RACIST POLICY.

stop breaking down their reductionist simplistic worldview.

you dont wait 200 years for your descendents to sue their descendents.


I voted no. I believe any reparations should be dealt out according to legal convention. Sue someone in court, if you can get a jury to give you a reparation, then fine. But I highly doubt that will be possible or practical.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm not interested in taking responsibility for something my ancestors and myself had nothing to do with. I understand how terrible the institution was...and the effects it has had through today....

When slaves were whipped by the whites, my ancestors were colonized and had their country looted by the British. I want to demand that the British government give me reperations.

I lead my life with no prejudice against anyone. My friends are of all races and ethnicities. I will never hold any prejudice against anyone, but I know that won't be the case with some other people. Reperations would be a step back in race relations, building animosity and bitterness.

A large percent of the country was either foreign born or is second or third generation, which means their relatives emmigrated here around the same time as your own.

What we need to do is provide those in poverty a good education, health care, and a way to get out of poverty - meaning a good job.

But maybe this poll is being freeped?

Sadly enough.

if you feel guilty, then by all means give away your life savings to african americans, if you happen to be white.

I'm the undecided. That's the way I voted.

Discrimination is wrong. We all know that. And we have to make it go away. We all know that too.

I think, though, that a better way to spend the money would be to fund education and affirmative action. I'd like to see affirmative action redesigned. I'd like to see it mean "hire based on potential." I'd like to see companies reimbursed for paying to bring people up to speed, people who have been disadvantaged by the system and discrimination and hence haven't had good educations and previous experience. Instead of letting someone into a school or hiring a person based on their qualifications TODAY, base the decision on their FUTURE qualifications given a reasonable catch-up period.

.
That is what will happen.

Reparations are a one-time way saying "Here, this is for what happened, now please don't ask for affirmative action, college-entry programs, or anything else."

I disagree with reparations for that very reason.

Better that we try to preserve on-going affirmative action and similar programs that occur over a long period of time, imho.

You are assuming that the reperation is total contrition for all past, present and FUTURE wrong doing. Not so.

AA is to create and maintain a level playing field.

I attended a conference for attorneys where the topic of reparations to African Americans was discussed. This was held at a historically black law school, btw.

Many of the African American lawyers in the group felt that the first thing that would happen would be that the reparations would be a foot in the door for all those who wish to see Affirmative Action dismantled.

Those who want to dismantle Affirmative Action will say that reparations are for payment for all past, present and future wrong-doing, and that the playing field should now be considered leveled. Otherwise, they will say, why would people agree to pay reparations and then keep on 'paying' through Affirmative Action and other such programs.

In fact, they felt the only way people would ever agree to pay reparations in the first place is if Affirmative Action, etc. were all dismantled.

I agree that the Repukes would use it as an excuse to claim the case is closed.

But if the amount of money was fairly small and it was clearly written into the law that this was in no way full compensation for all past, present and future acts of discrimination, I think that would be a safeguard against it being used to dismantle AA. It would be a partial payment of retribution for PAST wrongs.

To say it would for certain end AA, would be like saying, if Ford put out a defective auto and I was injured and sued that I could not sue again if I was injured in another defective model of their's in the future. That's not how it works.

for reparations only if it was agreed that it was compensation for past and present wrongs and that from here on out, everyone was considered to be playing on a level field.

Hell, right now, many people in this country apparently want gay people to go sit at the back of the bus, so they sure aren't going to be voting for reparations to happen with Affirmative Action still in play.

If it came down to a choice, I'd definitely go with AA.

If you were mixed race, would you get a check??? Or would it be pro-rated based on your african heritage???

Would it be means tested. Would Condaleeza Rice get the same check as your average black American????

What about the descendants of "freeman". Would they also be entitled to slavery reparations????

Just as with the Native Americans, there would have to be a percentage, like 3/4 of black descent.

We also mentioned it would be means tested (that means people over a certain income would not qualify).

Why are you so hysterically opposed to this? You have not provided any logical reasons for opposing this but keep making ridiculous assumptions.

just ask some of them here.

While i agree it was one of many horrible parts of the past of this nation, i don't see what reparations would accomplish.

a) how much would you pay? - Is there any way to determine how much one's ancestors were worth?......It would be more insulting to offer someone a "pittance" and say "ok, water under the bridge", than it would be to offer a sincere apology and back it up with other ways of helping minority communities.
b) who would you pay it to? - any african american? What about those whose ancestors came over after slavery ended...even though many still suffer the same "second-class" citizenship because of skin color. Why stop at african americans?....Native Americans lost their homeland because of america. Women had very few rights for generations in america. ...etc
c) how much would this cost? - What would be the cost in dollars for this? I know it sounds insensitive to think of the cost involved, but our country is pretty far in the "red" as it is now. How much would this increase the defecit. An increased debt and it's interest is something that the decendants of the current citizens who would be receiving reparations would be paying off down the road....

Does it mean giving an arbitrary sum of money to every American of African descent?

There has been some racial intermarriage in the last 140 years, and not every American citizen with African ancestors is descended from slaves. Should we first determine the lineage of each potential recipient of reparations?

Do Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, and other multi-millionaires get reparations?

From which fund are reparations to be drawn? Do we penalize businesses that profited from slavery and are still extant, or do we use federal funds and simply increase the deficit?

I voted against reparations, because I assumed it is defined as cash payments to African Americans. I don't think that would be practical, affordable, or could be fairly implemented.

I am 100% in favor of using our nation's resources to improve opportunity for all Anericans, regardless of race. This would mean spending as much or more on the education of inner city children as on wealthy suburnanites (more would be required to repair crumbling facilities and to purchase new computers, etc.).

I'm in favor of acknowledging that the problems of the black underclass in America can be blamed to a large extent on slavery and on the discrimination that persisted for more than 100 years after the Civil War -- and for making it a national priority to overcome the disadvantages that still persist. Affirmative action and economic investment in black communities are strategies (in addition to investment in education) that could be employed.

If the above two paragraphs are closer to the definition of reparations then I'm for it, but I can't support cash payments that would likely have very little long term positive effect on helping the next generation of African Americans build better lives and communities.

I certainly don't like the idea of the ancestors of slaveholders being the ones to pay them -- some of my ancestors had slaves, but other ancestors were abolitionists, and I also have reason to believe some of my ancestors were black.

In any case, I certainly received no benefit from my slave-holding ancestors, since they went on to be dirt-poor farmers in later generations.

I really do think some reparation should be made, though -- by the country at large, not by individuals, since they're all gone. But continuing affirmative action makes more sense, since a policy can last longer than a single cash payment.

I don't support reparations. If anyopne deserves reparations it would be Native Americans like myself. I do not support reparations for us either as it is not just to have the people of today foot the bill for the crimes of yesterday.

to people today.

You wanna talk lucrative? How about the whole damn continent?

There are companies and orginazations around that profited from the genocide of the Native American? Reparations are silly.

I'm just trying to refute the notion that its effects are not present today.

... they are called CASINOS. Thousands of stupid white people travel there to donate to the tribe in return for their sins.

What the tribes do with the money will be the ultimate measure of Native Americans. But I would seriously hope to see a LOT of schools being built.

Reno, and Atlantic City money men. Yes, it has made improvements, albeit minor, in their living conditions, it in no way replaces the years of genocide. That's like saying the Jews got their reparations with Israel. And since the Indian Gaming has become so successful, states are now trying to increase their gaming tax to 40%.

how my Grandparents who came to this country from 1905 to 1917 from Italy are in any way responsible for slavery?

I believe in affirmative action in an effort to correct some social imbalances, but to take my tax dollars to pay ancestors of oppressed people that my ancestors had no part in is ludicrous.

Even more absurd are ancestors of the many Union soldiers who fought and died in the Civil War to end the tyranny of slavery. Their ancestors gave their lives so African-Americans could be free, now others want to charge them for it?

It comes a time when Native-Americans, African-Americans, and all Americans have to put the past in its rightful place.

We should condemn the folly of the past, a past that is four or five generations removed from us, and respect each other as Americans, regardless of how we got here, who came first, or what hardships our ancestors had to endure.

unfortunately, the ancestors of those Union Army soldiers were the ones that wrote the Constitution that established the legalization of slavery and the denigration of African-Americans. And, of course, corporations were built on that illegitimate bedrock. We still "benefit" from that today.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-reparations.htm

They established slavery before the colonies were independent. We should be seeking reparations from London.

...and everything after that is our OWN responsibility. Its to the shame of OUR forefathers that they did not truly grasp the idea of liberty that they otherwise wrote about so eloquently.

I didn't fight a revolution, neither did you unless you are really, really old.

It's not my fault my ancestors revolted. I don't owe any money off what my forefathers did, either. My grandfather died owing money to the VA for his last years, and neither my father nor I have to pay them.

My uncle died owing child support. I don't owe anything on that, either.

..."benefit" from the free labor that slavery provided.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-reparations.htm

benefit from seizing this land from the native Americans, who benefitted from seizing it from earlier tribes, who benefited from seizing it from others.

We all collectively benefit from driving the entire species of Neanderthals from the earth.

If you want to look at the history of mankind for people who benefitted from injustice, the entire house of mankind is stained with the blood of innocents. We are all living the legacy of rapine and murder, not to put too fine a point on it.

But I have never owned a slave. I've never taken someone's property at gunpoint or taken someone as property. My great grandfather started out with NOTHING, the son of a broke miner and a half-breed indian woman who took everything he ever owned from the labor of his hands. Every advantage I was ever born with accrued from his labor and that of my direct ancestors.

My grandfather also started out "broke" and fought in WWII, killing many Japanese. Do I need to pay restitution to them? I don't owe anyone money for the misdeeds of my ancestors or other people's ancestors.

The Japanese internees were different, because many of them are still alive and are direct victims. Do my grandchildren need to make reparations to their grandchildren, many of whom will undoubtedly grow up with more advantages than my children will?

It makes not a whit of sense.

I am assuming that since you didn't address one issue raised in the article.

As for the American Indians, I agree. The crime that is STILL going on to the American Indian also raises the possibility of reparations.

I guess I am more a believer in personal responsibility than many on this board. This country is MY country, and I am responsible in some way for what it does to its citizens today (heck, I thought that was what this forum was all about...doing something). The fact that African-Americans could not officially participate in citizenship until as little as 40 years ago is an embarrassment to me personally (for some odd reason, several on this thread think that slavery was the end of the plight of African-Americans...it was just the end of a chapter). And, I want my country to own up to it in SOME way. Heck, an apology would be a nice start.

"The reparations movement can't win in court, Pell insists. "But companies have learned you don't judge a lawsuit by its merits. You judge it by the potential public relations damage. Corporate America is following this issue. They understand how nasty it could get if someone comes in and says you have blood on your hands."

It shouldn't come to that, says Willie Gary, a reparations team member. He says companies tied to slavery should step forward and make amends by putting money into African-American scholarships and education. "Based on what America stands for and has stood for, it's the right thing to do. There's an opportunity to make a wrong right," he says. "This should be a negotiated matter. We shouldn't be in litigation for 20 years."

If you had, you would have seen they 1) aren't talking about government reparations, but those of private companies. 2) They admittedly don't have a case in court but are relying on adverse publicity to the companies to "force" a payment. 3) discuss the fact that the amount of payments is completely uncertain, the participants are all dead, and mention that many of the companies mentioned have been prominent in advancing the cause of African Americans since.

Does the existence of many of these companies benefit all of us? Sure. It could be argued that the existence of VW and IGFarben benefits us, too. That won't undo the holocaust. Should Americans who benefit from the existence of German companies pay holocaust reparations?

What does this have to do with "individual responsibility", anyway? Individual responsibility is being responsible for MY OWN choices. You're saying that rich or poor, white or black, democrat or republican, immigrant or native, I am BORN owing money to someone because something bad happened to them over the past 400 years. WTF?

That's COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, not individual responsibility.

Should the descendents of slaves in this country be offered reparations?

Yes. They've already been offered reparations. They should finally be given reparations.

Who gets the money?

The descendent of slaves, specifically, the descendents of African slaves. The feasibility of making individual remunerations should be investigated. Some form of collective repayment might be appropriate.

Where does it come from?

The Treasury. There are cases of corporate culpability which could be handled separately, however, it should be possible for corporate entities to make resititutions by paying into a public reparations fund.

Should people be awarded reparations on the grounds that they are discriminated against?

The Fourteenth Amendment provides a constitutional protection against discrimination by the federal government. Remedies for violations of the 14th Amendment can and should be distinguished from the issue of reparations for slavery.

What about immigrants from Africa since slavery ended?

They are generally not entitled to reparations on principle. As a practical matter, if they should receive as a group some benefit from reparations, it ought not be the focus of undue consternation.

Analogy. If you owned a house on a street where all of your neighbors received funds to make substantial home improvements, the value of your home would increase. That would hardly be unjust.

If you were to recieve funds as well, even though you were not yourself the descendent of slaves, on the basis that your neighborhood had historically been set aside by realtors, bankers and civic officials as a place where the descendents of slaves would be allowed to live, that would not be entirely just. Yet it would hardly seem to be a grave injustice. It would constitute a minor shortcoming in the administration of a program of reparations.

Do only people whose ancestors owned slaves or profited in some way from slavery to pay for this?

The United States government has to pay for this because it wrote slavery into its constitution, and because it profited from the trade in slaves. I draw your attention to Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

And Article 4 section 2:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

And of course the infamous 3/5ths compromise from Article 1, section 2:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Altogether these clauses had the effect of making the United States a government that sanctioned, enforced, and profited from slavery.

What of the discrimination suffered by other groups?

In cases of criminal law, it is not an adequate defense to say that the victims of your crime share a similar fate with others. "Sure, your honor, I busted his kneecaps. But what about all the other welchers whose kneecaps get busted? What about all the kneecaps the police have busted? What about all the skiers who break their legs? What about all the football players with bum knees? Just think of all the arthritic grandmas in New Jersey alone? Am I responsible for all the damaged knees in this world? In the interests of justice, please, your honor, don't make me pay for this natural vulnerability of the human anatomy."



Finally, an observation on divisiveness. I have little doubt that a movement simply to amend the Constitution to remove its most odious provisions would not succeed in today's social environment, and would probably fail spectacularly. That is, without commenting on the issues of reparations, the simple proposition that American descendents of slaves transported from Africa ought not be disrespected in our Constitution would prove to be extremely divisive. The year is 2005. I believe history has shown that the divisiveness engendered by the transatlantic slave system has not healed of its own accord.

I wanted to hear some strong opinions on it, since I'm trying to figure out my own position. I've googled around, checking for sites about it, but many of them are so polarized for their agenda it is a turn off to read them. I'd just like points to ponder, and you gave me some. Thanks.

And exactly how would you determine who is a slave anscestor and who is not???

The anscestors of slaves don't have serial numbers tatooed on their arms like holocaust survivors. If "oral history" sufficed ... EVERYONE would have an "oral history" of slavery.

We can look to similar cases in international law to see how the mechanics of repayment have been worked out. For instance, the Japanese made reparations for its explotation of "comfort women" in WWII in the form of an "Asian Women's Fund." This has been a source of continued controversy, but it is worth taking a look at because of the variety of ways the program was recieved and implemented in different countries. See Soh's Comfort Women Project.

The issue of reparations for the Holocaust is not so simple as making payments to those with serial numbers tattooed on their flesh. An informal translation of the German Law on the Creation of a Foundation "Remembrance, Responsibility and Future" shows that the purpose of the fund is much broader than simply making financial restitutions to particular survivors.

(1) The purpose of the Foundation is to make financial compensation available through partner organizations to former forced laborers and to those affected by other injustices from the National Socialist period. (2) A "Remembrance and Future" fund will be established within the Foundation. Its continuing task is to use the income produced by the financial assets provided to the Foundation to foster projects that serve the purposes of better understanding among peoples, the interests of survivors of the National Socialist regime, youth exchange, social justice, remembrance of the threat posed by totalitarian systems and despotism, and international cooperation in humanitarian endeavors. In commemoration and respect of those victims of National Socialist injustice who did not survive, it is also intended to further projects in the interest of their heirs.

Identifying individual claimants was a monumental undertaking, but it was considered by the Claims Conference to be essential to the task of righting the injustices of the Nazi regime:

To help survivors document their claims to meet the requirements of the German Foundation, the Claims Conference undertook pro-active research in 150 Holocaust-related archives scattered in 30 countries around the world. Claims Conference researchers scoured paper and microfilmed lists—often handwritten and not alphabetized—in order to match the names of claimants to any documentation that would meet the requirements established by the German Foundation.

Sources of information included concentration camp lists, ghetto registers, transport lists, labor battalion rosters, lists of slave laborers in factories and plants, lists of inmates on work gangs, lists of prisoners released or liberated from concentration camps by Allied forces or humanitarian groups, lists of recipients of packages sent by friends and relatives through the Red Cross, and testimonials of survivors produced in the immediate aftermath of the Nazi occupation, among others.

This research effort led to payments for more than 30,000 survivors who otherwise lacked any documentation of their persecution. In addition, the comprehensive Claims Conference research led to a re-evaluation of certain aspects of the Shoah. In particular the Claims Conference successfully pressed the German Foundation to pay claimants able to prove persecution in certain camps in Bulgaria, Romania, North Africa, and Vichy France. Without the Claims Conference's research and the demand for a re-examination of the status of these claimants, they would have been excluded from consideration for forced or slave labor payments.

Finally, where no documentation could be found, applicants were invited to describe their persecution experiences and these statements could constitute part of the proof that the claimant was eligible for a payment.

$401 million to be paid to Nazi-era slave laborers

In sum, I am not impressed by arguments that just restitution for slavery would be unworkable. No such fund is without its flaws, but in the interests of justice, decent attempts can be made. Opposition to reparations seems to be a matter of political will more than a genuine concern about the fair and equitable administration of a reparations fund.

And so you expect to find all this paper documentation for slaves origin 140 years ago as well as family bibles documenting 6-7 generations.

Generally, a generation is considered 30-35 years.

Native Americans have been able to trace their ancestory.

Why do you assume that early slaves were Christian? Did the African tribes from which the slaves were kidnapped practice Christianity and use Bibles? LMAO!!!

FYI: Slaves were NOT ALLOWED to own books.

Gee, you are so well informed perhaps this is why you insist on resorting to hysterical falsehoods to support your argument.

Family bibles are the traditional way to trace geneology. I would assume that early slaves wouldn't have bibles. But subsequent generations would try to transcribe their "oral history" while it was still fresh.

30-35 years is the tail end of fertility and child bearing. So that the upper limit of a generational cycle. To find the total number of generations, you need to look at when females have children. And it's practical from the standpoint that multiple child families will probably have their last children in these ages.

So reference the chart. If the first kids are coming in the 16-17 (more realistic given the time periods) range, you'll find a maximum 8 generations. If you go as late as 23 years (WAY OLD, even for today among "oppressed" communities), you get 6 generations.

You got me. My support for reparations is based purely on moral and legal principles. When it comes to particulars, I must fall back on the position that it deserves to be studied, which I had thought was the Green position, and is a view held by many progressive Democrats. In my view the greatest obstacle to a reparations fund being established by Congress is political. A strictly legal case need not be concerned with the politics of it, although many obstacles remain, as you note. An act of Congress would surely be helpful in that regard. I don't expect one anytime soon, but I would welcome it.

but the problem is that there is no feasible way to achieve it under the current situation. Who gets the money? All the direct victims of slavery are dead. Who pays? All those responsible for slavery are dead. Do we do it on race-based system? What about people who came here after slavery? If our (this is me speaking as a black man) ancestors suffered under slavery, why then should the descendants the money.

A prevailing argument amongst those who support reparations is that while those of the newer generation did not directly cause slavery, they benefited from the wealth. This argument is rather ridiculous, because if they benefited from the wealth, then everybody benefited. It's not as if all American wealth is the fruit of slavery. To suggest otherwise is to paint America with a unfairly broad brush. There seems to no feasible solution, sort of sugar-coated socialism.

Many have argued that the plan that they're looking for is not a direct payout, but government funds used to create institutions of awareness. That sounds good, but most of the talk I've heard is about the government dispensing checks.

my $.02

what with all the racism that we find right here on DU

i voted for

It's a lack of edu on the issue for the most part, IMO.

I think in some instances, people feel threatened by acknowledging the reality of this issue. Not sure why. I am a white female, upper middle class income and I have no problem acknowledging that I have advantages due to my race and class background (my family of origin and my current family--husband and kids).

It doesn't mean I didn't work hard to get to where I am to acknowledge the advantages, but I suppose it may for some. Additionally, some may feel very uncomfortable with not being able to take full credit for where they are. It's very difficult to get people to move outside of their comfort zones.

Ever read the US constitution? Ever wonder WHY the constitution specifically states no one may be punished for the actions of a family member, or ancestor?

Ever bother to read the history of such practices? No, didn't think so.

:nuke:

the effects of slavery are STILL felt today my friend...and to say otherwise is just plain ignorance

Go back and ask your self this question. Would your life be any different if your family had black skin instead of white skin?

Would your father or grandfather have held the same jobs and priviledges they did if they would have had black skin during the first 2/3 of the the 20th century?

It is a shame most wont admit their white priviledge.

Considering black people were essentially not allowed to go to college (segregation laws and lack of finances) in his day,it's a safe assumption.

http://www.pbs.org/itvs/fromswastikatojimcrow/blackcolleges_2.html
Black Institutions and Desegregation
African Americans also continued to press for equality in public higher education their efforts encouraged by the Supreme Court decision in Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada in 1938, which forced Southern state governments to concede more resources for the improvement of African American higher education than at any time since the Reconstruction era.

During the early 1950s, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) turned its efforts from educational equality to school desegregation. Its work culminated successfully in the Sweatt v. Painter (1950) and Brown v. Board of Education (1954) desegregation decisions, although these decisions had little direct effect on Black colleges.

In 1992 the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Fordice that patterns of racial segregation still remained in Mississippi¹s public university system, nearly 40 years after Brown v. Board of Education

..

however, that does not make the life I enjoy now a "privilege".

I have a right to expect decent and equal treatment, and decent opportunity.

If African Americans cannot partake in that life, then that is the problem, not my enjoyment of that life.

African-Americans?

did I say that African Americans are responsible for their own hardship.

I am talking about the constant push of our focus outside of the scope of the problem,

from, "black people aren't being treated fairly,"

to, "white people are privileged in society."

I believe we need to focus on the former, rather than the latter, because as I have been saying, the latter is not really a problem.

the former does NOT imply the latter, as the world is not a zero-sum game.

If a white person can drive around at night without being harassed by the cops, he is not privileged, he is enjoying what everyone has a right to enjoy, freedom of movement. The "benefit" is the exact same, whether blacks share in it or not.

I also used another example earlier. If under racism I, as a white person, get a job, it cannot be proven conclusively that, under equality, I would not have gotten that job, unless you look at indivdual circumstances, which you people seem to find completely irrelevant.

Sorry about the knee-jerk response on my part. I agree with what you just said.

thank you for being reasonable

:toast:

darboy:
"If a white person can drive around at night without being harassed by the cops, he is not privileged, he is enjoying what everyone has a right to enjoy, freedom of movement. The "benefit" is the exact same, whether blacks share in it or not."

No, it is a privilege if it is not afforded to everyone equally, and it hasn't been afforded to everyone equally, historically and presently. It is precisely a white privilege, and often a white male privilege. This is exactly what is meant by white skin privilege, and it is a privilege.

While it is also a basic right, only whites are privileged enough to have full rights, and as our country was originally designed, only white males that owned property had full rights.

It is only by extension of those rights to all that it no longer functions as a privilege.

priv·i·lege ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prv-lj, prvlj)
n.

A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

does it say anything about the benefit needing to be denied to others. It could be both given to "A class, individual, or caste" as well as "ALL classes, individuals, or castes."


the point of calling it a privilege is to imply that all white people unfairly benefit from discrimination, and therefore all whites are responsible for discrimination, regardless of individual circusmtances.

darboy:
"the point of calling it a privilege is to imply that all white people unfairly benefit from discrimination, and therefore all whites are responsible for discrimination, regardless of individual circusmtances."

You are correct in this assessment. It is also true.

I conceive a privilege as a benefit that is above and beyond what benefits one should expect to have in an ideal society.

Privilege also implies a benefit that can be taken away if the holder fails to uphold some requirement. (ie children in many households may watch TV as long as they do their homework. If they don't it is taken away.)

On the other hand a right is something that should be expected and is, in an ideal society, not able to be taken away. (ie children have a right to be fed, its not reasonable to starve children as punishment)



As to my driving example; there is another problem with calling it a privilege. Not only is the right to be free from harassment due to race expected, but it is a right that did not generate from discrimination.


Under racism whites may drive and be free of harassment, blacks may not.

Under equality, whites may drive and be free of harassment, blacks may as well.

therefore you cannot say that whites received a "privilege" because blacks were discriminated against. They would have the same right whether there was racism or equality. One does not cause the other.

Stop shifting the scope of the problem in order to blame all white people.

darboy:
"I conceive a privilege as a benefit that is above and beyond what benefits one should expect to have in an ideal society."

You have a right to your conceptions, but this is your personal definition and no other.

"Privilege also implies a benefit that can be taken away if the holder fails to uphold some requirement."

As this one can. A white person that marries someone from a different racial or ethnic group will lose some of their white privilege, and become suspect in the white majority. In past times, this meant that the white person had to leave the white community and live in the minority community. It would make it difficult for the white person to find housing, or perhaps a job, or job advancement.

"As to my driving example; there is another problem with calling it a privilege. Not only is the right to be free from harassment due to race expected, but it is a right that did not generate from discrimination."

Oh, but yes it did. All rights, in the history of the understanding of basic human rights, developed from their abrogation. It was the absence of rights that created the development of thought about those rights in the first place.

And, I am not blaming all white people, but I do believe your thinking is exactly backwards.

or loss of rights?

Are we fighting so that blacks can have "privileges", or are they "rights"?

so the right to be free from harassment by the cops came about because blacks were discriminated against? I don't agree.

Rights are based on our values. We value freedom and privacy in this country, that's why we have a right not to be harassed by the police.

We have freedom of religion because we didn't want the government nosing in our consciences.


You have yet to explain to me how denying blacks the right to be free from harassment CAUSED whites to have that right. It is possible that in society BOTH groups could have those rights. One doesn't flow from the other.

Regarding your response to my assertion that privilege can be lost...

your response was irrelevant. People have the RIGHT to equal treatment in housing, career advancement, etc. if a white person marries a black person, maybe the racist community can deny him those rights, which is a sad fact. But the fact that those who do NOT marry outside their race still retain those rights do not make them mere privileges.


Finally, it is you who is thinking backwards. I don't understand why you authoritarians have to shift the scope of the problem so you can imply that the life lived by white people is somehow unfair. THAT is backwards. It makes much more sense to point out that denying black people the ability to enjoy in those rights is unfair.

I don't understands what motivates you people to attack an entire race of people in a blanket fashion. It only serves to foster resentment and divison among the races which is counterproductive.

darboy:
"You have yet to explain to me how denying blacks the right to be free from harassment CAUSED whites to have that right."

I never claimed that it did.

"Regarding your response to my assertion that privilege can be lost...
your response was irrelevant."

I knew you couldn't debate the point, so now you duck the point by calling it irrelevant. What I said is historically accurate. Frankly, I don't think you know a great deal about the history of race relations in the United States.

Most of what you state is your logical extrapolation of a particular principle. It founders, however, on that history that I've just discussed.

AND, to states that whites enjoy privilege in this country is not to attack them at all. It is simply an observation of how race has functioned and continues to function in this country.

There is quite a bit of writing on the idea of white privilege.

one good essay:
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/whiteprivilege.htm

and here is a definition:

white privilege, a social relation
1. a. A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by white persons beyond the common advantage of all others; an exemption in many particular cases from certain burdens or liabilities.
b. A special advantage or benefit of white persons; with reference to divine dispensations, natural advantages, gifts of fortune, genetic endowments, social relations, etc.
2. A privileged position; the possession of an advantage white persons enjoy over non-white persons.
3. a. The special right or immunity attaching to white persons as a social relation; prerogative.
b. display of white privilege, a social expression of a white person or persons demanding to be treated as a member or members of the socially privileged class.
4. a. To invest white persons with a privilege or privileges; to grant to white persons a particular right or immunity; to benefit or favor specially white persons; to invest white persons with special honorable distinctions.
b. To avail oneself of a privilege owing to one as a white person.
5. To authorize or license of white person or persons what is forbidden or wrong for non-whites; to justify, excuse.
6. To give to white persons special freedom or immunity from some liability or burden to which non-white persons are subject; to exempt.

excerpted from
http://www.whiteprivilege.com/

who cannot argue the point so you talk about irrelevancies. You mistake things that are basic rights for things that are mere privileges.


A privilege implies something that is above and beyond what basic benefits everyone should expect. Equal and fair treatment is a right that everyone should enjoy. It's a shame that in our past, whites who intermarried lost that right.

The point of calling it a privilege instead of a right is to imply that whites, no matter what their individual circumstances, are unfairly benefitting from the discrimination against blacks. If you call it a right, then whites would correctly believe, "I should not feel guilty about the life that I lead, simply because of my skin color (barring other circumstances)."

By calling a right a privilege you hope to cause white people to think "gee, I get things I don't deserve because blacks are discriminated against. I am responsible for discrimination."

By calling the right to be free from police harassment a "privilege", you imply it was unfairly ill-gotten at the expense of black people. In reality, freedom from police harassment should be enjoyed by all.


Its a misguided means of attempting to spur whites to go along with your agenda by fomenting unwarranted guilt.

Taking another example of the difference between a right and a privilege...

Watching TV is a privilege enjoyed by children. In society we do not believe that watching television is a basic right. If someone does not have the ability to watch TV, it does not concern us as a society.

Being fed is a RIGHT enjoyed by children. If parents failed to feed children, we as society would be horrified.

Driving is also a privilege granted by the state. It is not a violation of human rights (in general) to bar someone from driving. The ability to travel is a RIGHT enjoyed by people. The state cannot arbitrarily imprison people.

Fair and decent treatment is a human RIGHT that no one needs to be made to feel guilty about having. Not only is doing so UNECESSARY to accomplish the goal of equality, it is fundamentally dishonest -- to reduce basic rights to privileges.

Do not imply that the problem is that whites possess these rights, the problem is that minorities DO NOT.

If we both have one apple each and yours is taken away, does it become my fault because my apple was not taken away? Shouldn't the course of action be to get your apple back, rather than to tell me my apple is a "privilege" and imply it is ill-gotten?


Finally, there is a lot of writing on how great communism is too :eyes:

darboy:
"The point of calling it a privilege instead of a right is to imply that whites, no matter what their individual circumstances, are unfairly benefitting from the discrimination against blacks. "

Exactly, and all whites ARE benefiting from discrimination against blacks, whether they realize it or not. You apparently don't understand that this is true!

"By calling a right a privilege you hope to cause white people to think "gee, I get things I don't deserve because blacks are discriminated against. I am responsible for discrimination."

Also true! This is exactly how it functions in society, your denial not withstanding

now I still don't agree, and now Im not going to listen to you anymore because I don't want to sit around and be blamed for slavery.

Now what did you accomplish there? NOTHING



aside...

are you saying whites dont deserve the right to vote and have their vote counted, or to be free from police harassment, or to be considered for jobs or college admission based on his or her merits, or to live in safe neighborhoods or to have a well funded educational system?


If your aim is to take those things away from me, I am REALLY not going to talk to you anymore.

There are TONS of white people out there who do NOT have the same socio-economic advantages as you. They should be entitled to the same social reparations as members of any oppressed class.

We need more input from your point of view, and I'd love to hear what you have to say.

this is what i see, responses on some of these threads

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3075876&mesg_id=3075876&page=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3060205&mesg_id=3060205&page=

i just see this whole attitude about "white victimization" and a lot of people talking about "reverse racism" as if it actually existed and some even going so far as to deny the idea of white privilege

it's getting more and more vocal on all of the boards and it's really disheartening and sickening

Some folks need to read a little history about slavery and how the effects are still with us before spouting off ridiculous statments.

By the way, I didn't realize how much bigotry is on the DU, simply fucking amazing.

when i first started posting i thought this was the greatest place in the world! a bunch of people who hated bush as much as me!

but i spend less and less time on here as the days go by because what i see is so bad to the point of unbearable

If the idea is so strongly opposed here on a liberal forum, it should give you an idea of how it is received by the general public.

why should I as a Mexican-American pay for slaves that my family never owned.

The largest minority group in the US are Hispanics, why should we pay reparations?

That is the law of the land.

Under the provisions of the constitution (article 1, 8), congress has power to lay and collect taxes, etc., "to pay the debts" of the United States. Having power to raise money for that purpose, it of course follows that it has power, when the money is raised, to appropriate it to the same object. What are the debts of the United States within the meaning of this constitutional provision? It is conceded, and, indeed, it cannot be questioned, that the debts are not limited to those which are evidenced by some written obligation, or to those which are otherwise of a strictly legal character. The term "debts" includes those debts or claims which rest upon a merely equitable or honorary obligation, and which would not be recoverable in a court of law if existing against an individual. The nation, speaking broadly, owes a "debt" to an individual when his claim grows out of general principles of right and justice,--when, in other words, it is based upon considerations of a moral or merely honorary nature, such as are binding on the conscience or the honor of an individual, although the debt could obtain no recognition in a court of law. The power of congress extends, at least, as far as the recognition and payment of claims against the government which are thus founded. To no other branch of the government than congress could any application be successfully made, on the part of the owners of such claims or debts, for the payment thereof. Their recognition depends solely upon congress, and whether it will recognize claims thus founded must be left to the discretion of that body. Payments to individuals, no of right, or of a merely legal claim, but payments in the nature of a gratuity, yet having some feature of moral obligation to support them, have been made by the government, by virtue of acts of congress appropriating the public money, ever since its foundation. Some of the acts were based upon considerations of pure charity. A long list of acts directing payments of the above general character is appended to the brief of one of the counsel for the defendants in error. The acts are referred to, not for the purpose of asserting their validity in all cases, but as evidence of what has been the practice of congress since the adoption of the constitution. See, also, among other cases in this court, Emerson v. Hall, 13 Pet. 409; U. S. v. Price, 116 U.S. 43 , 6 Sup. Ct. 235; Williams v. Heard, 140 U.S. 529 , 11 Sup. Ct. 885. The last-cited case arose under an act of congress in relation to the Alabama claims.

The claims presented on the part of the United States against Great Britain, arising out of the depredations committed by the Confederate vessel Alabama and other designated Confederate vessels, which had sailed from British ports, upon the commerce and navy of the United States during the War of the Rebellion, were by the treaty of Washington concluded May 8, 1871, between the United States and Great Britain, submitted to a tribunal of arbitration called to meet at Geneva, in Switzerland. Certain indirect claims, or war risks, as they were sometimes called, were included by this government in its claims against Great Britain and were presented to the tribunal above named. Great Britain objected to the submission of those claims, on the ground that their consideration was not included in the purview of the treaty. This matter was the subject of some difference of opinion among the representatives of the respective governments, and they were not able to agree upon the subject, when the arbitrators, without expressing any opinion upon the point of difference as to the interpretation of the treaty; stated that these indirect or war claims did not constitute, upon principles of international law applicable to such cases, a foundation for an award of compensation or computation of damages between the nations, and should, upon such principles, be wholly excluded from all consideration of the tribunal in making its award, even if there were no disagreement between the two governments as to the competency of the tribunal to decide them. This declaration was accepted by the president, and those claims were not insisted upon before the tribunal, and were not taken into consideration in making the award. Thus, it is seen that there were no legal claims of the hlders of those war risks upon the government for the payment to them of any sum whatever. The award made by the tribunal, which was paid to the United States by Great Britain, was held to have been made to the United States as a nation (U. S. v. Weld,127 U.S. 51 , 8 Sup. Ct. 1000); and the fund itself came into the treasury as any public moneys of the country.

By the act of June 5, 1882 (22 Stat. 98, c. 195), the court of commissioners of Alabama claims was re-established, and the duty was imposed upon it to receive and examine claims which might be presented, putting them into classes, the second of which was "for the payment of premiums for war risks, whether paid to corporations, agents or individuals for the sailing of any Confederate cruiser." The Heards were owners of claims for "war risks," and congress finally appropriated money to pay a portion of them. Congress thus recognized as proper to be paid a class of claims which had not been taken into consideration by the Geneva tribunal, but which had been decided by that tribunal to have no basis in international law. It is a case, therefore, of the recognition by congress of what it regarded as an equitable claim on the part of the owners of these war risks to be paid some portion of their claims, and the validity of the appropriation was never questioned.

Among the latest examples of payments that are not of right or of any legal claim, but which are in the nature of a gratuity depending upon equitable considerations, are the cases, just decided by this court, of Blagge v. Balch, Brooks v. Codman, and Foote v. Board, reported as one case in 162 U.S. 439 , 16 Sup. Ct. 853. The claims in those cases are what have been known as the "French Spoliation Claims," being based upon depredations of French cruisers upon our commerce prior to July, 1801. An appropriation for their payment was made by congress in 1891, upon the conditions and to the class of persons named in the act. Questions arose as to the proper interpretation of the act, and as to the character of the payments provided for therein. This court held the payments were purposely brought by congress within the category of payments that are not of right, but which are in the nature of a gratuity, and as an act of grace, though founded upon a prior moral or honorable obligation to pay to some one who might be said in some way to represent the original sufferers. No question of the power of congress to make such appropriation was raised by any one.

US v. Realty Company

There can be no question that the congress has the power to make such appropriations as are necessary to pay its debts.

(On edit: I don't mean to imply by this citation that there are no claims of a strictly legal character to be made against the United States in the matter of slavery. It is merely a statement on the the scope and meaning of Article 1, Section 8 powers.)

because we say so. :eyes:

BTW I asked why Hispanics should pay reparations, not how would they.

Citizens of the United States should pay taxes in order to pay the debts of the United States. Some of those debts are strictly legal in nature, others are not. In any case, the United States has incurred many debts. A citizen born or naturalized in the year 2005 will be responsible for a mountain of debts that have little if any direct bearing on his or her identity as a person, except insofar as he or she is a citizen of the United States.

A more pertinent question at this juncture might be why anybody should single out what is at this point a purely hypothetical debt owed for slavery as an issue on which to contest the obligations of citizenship.

There are no living ex-slaves, only descendants, and even during slavery, many blacks were free, and some even profited from the slave trade.

Chinese "coolies" were also essentially slaves, as were many European indentured servants.

It just seems impossible to do reparations fairly and with any certainly that the people recieving them are actually the right people.

A better idea would be to have the government pay for college for EVERYONE, and dedicate the program to the millions who were oppressed for all those centuries.

It would serve as a major leg up for those who were really affected by slavery, and a nice break on tuition for everybody else.

Works in Europe...



But the republicans would hate that idea - AN EDUCATED POPULACE! OH, THE HORROR!

it's an idea that might sound nice...but it could never be realistically implemeted in any fair way that wouldn't bankrupt the country even further.

be able to think independently and not believe all they hear on faux and rush limbaugh

to slavery!

It's about the environments we have created and the vicious cycle of poverty and crime that continue to this day!!!

had a nice evening watching the pbs show on slavery part one this week. did not see much I did not know already, except that at the very beginning of the colonies white indentured servants and black slaves were pretty much in the same boat, both having opportunity to fight the system of oppression through the courts of the day. the seperation and codifying laws based on race was a gradual process over a period of years.

reperations for anyone who was a slave? sure. for the descendants? no.
unless one chooses perpetual victimhood, it is obvious that many blacks and whites and hispanics have overcome various social restrictions and/or circumstances of their birth,or class, or upbringing, so it is possible, for those who give it a good try and accept responsibility for their role in their own progress.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

Just like wealthy white descendants inherit money from previous generations. Ever heard of a 5th or 6th generation trust?

So then a value would be assigned to each enslaved person. And benefits would be distributed to equally to each descendent.

Such that, a family with 5,000 descendents will get 1/5,0000 share. A family with only 256 descendents would get a 1/256 share????

It's your model!!!

Why are you using absurd examples that are not in the realm of reality?

I know someone whose great grandmother was a slave and there are only about 15 living descendants in that family. Do you even know any black people?

Native Americans have been issue reperation checks and they had to show they were at least 3/4 Native American. This has been done.

I also said it should be means tested in another post, that will weed out more people.

Apparently, you didn't read the post where I offered one possible way in which it could be implemented.

Hmmm ... one generation every 15-20 years (marriage standards were different back then) since 1865 yields a LOT more generations than three. If producing 2-6 kids per generation, that can add up VERY quickly.

Mean child bearing age vs # generations over 140 years.

13: 10.7
14: 10
15: 9.3
16: 8.75
17: 8.25
18: 7.8
19: 7.4
20: 7
21: 6.6
22: 6.4
23: 6.1
24: 5.8

OK, there are probably some demographers out there who can add in additional variables including # of children, average periods between children, and infant mortality rates among first borns.

140 years would practically lead to AT LEAST SIX generations assuming a mean reproduction period of 23 years (WAY OLD by the periods standards (and by TODAYS standards as well in particular communities). How old is this person who's great nana was a slave???

Now if any native tribe was issued reparations, it was to the tribe, not to the individual. The individual would need a certain heritage to show membership and "vestment" in the tribe.

Yes, I DO know black people.

Your formula is bogus

You even FAILED to factor in how many blacks had children with whites, which would weed them out.

I didn't intend this to be complete. I intended it to be a rough guess a little beyond saying "2-3" generations.

As you see, if the average age between first children is 23 years, you have 6 generations. I think 23 years is GENEROUS since people got married VERY young during that period. And when your talking about the SOUTH (where marriage age was often 13) your probably talking about first children on average between ages 14-17.

And as I noted, the recent trend is YOUNGER and YOUNGER.

But if you're so gung ho on reparations, tell me how it would affect the tendencies for black junior high girls having babies.

Ultraist, you've made some very nice arguments, I've read all your threads here, but I'm surprised at this phrase. 1/16 is the delineating factor for Native American proof. I know because I'm Kiowa. The reason for such a pitance of blood required to receive reparations is the rape and breed factor. Many states offered land or livestock if a man would marry a native woman. The logic was to "weed" them out. And that is exactly what has happened over the centuries of American expansion and "occupation".

I agree with you on many of your posts, but I also agree with Gia on the generational factor, and with other poster that a lump sum payment could effectively harm AA and would be far better served as scholarships, neighborhood development, housing loans and so forth.

"..it is obvious that many blacks and whites and hispanics have overcome various social restrictions and/or circumstances of their birth,or class, or upbringing, so it is possible, for those who give it a good try and accept responsibility for their role in their own progress."


:eyes:

New York was the capital of slave-trading.

Both were in the Union Army. I'll agree to slavery reparations when the recipients pay me for the services rendered by my family.

And excuse me if that idea was expressed earlier in the thread, I really don't feel like wading through 80+ posts just now.

The soldiers were compensated (through pay). Sadly, the slaves never have been paid for 10s of years of work (individually) and 250 years of work (collectively). Yet, corporations built on this free labor thrive today, as do the shareholders, employees, and customers of those corporations. We are all still part of the crime today through malevolent or passive ignorance.

Most white immigrants were virtual captives of corporate empires in corporate towns. At the end of two weeks they would often end up owing the company more than when they started.

Shouldn't these people be entitled to reparation when the effect is the same????

where your family could be sold off as property? I don't agree with that equation.

enslaved them. Anthing further than that would open up a can of worms that no one would want to deal with.

Should the descendents women be compensated because they did not have the right to vote?

not half-assed HUD ghettos crumbling at their foundations from underfunding and neglect.

not overcrowded dangerous schools with teachers who can't teach and administrators who can't adjust.

not racist cops who figure that any black who drives a nice car is a thief or a drug dealer.

not a minimum wage that languishes under 12 years of inflation at a time.

not mandatory minimum sentencing that scars a disproportionate quantity of black males for life.

WE THE PEOPLE NEED TO START CARING AGAIN.

We need to make an honest effort to provide the federal, state, and local revenue base needed to refurbish public housing and provide decent, well-maintained public schools with classrooms and staff adequate to their mission. We need to relentlessly prosecute police who abuse their authority, and learn how to apply the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments again in the spirit they were conceived. And we need our business owners to take the responsibility for the well-being of their workforce, whether by agressive unionizing or electing congresspeople who will link minimum wage and rent control directly to inflationary increases.

This is basic. We owe it to all society: whites, blacks, browns, reds, yellows, and everything in between. People from every race and gender have suffered greatly under the yolk of economic and racial oppression; there is no fair way to sort out exactly who is owed exactly what in retrospect. But we can do everything within our means to make sure that its long-term effects die out as quickly as possible while remembering the many struggles for equality clearly from generation to generation so future societies can avoid the bigotry that has so afflicted us over the years -- and, sadly, still does.

The best and most equitable reparations we have to give are those that directly address present conditions. Let's settle those first, and then we can see if anything else is possible.

First, it endorses the notion of collective guilt, which is as idiotic as "original sin" (and in this case not much different). Secondly, because there are many millions of people in this country whose ancestors had NOTHING whatsoever to do with slavery (the greatest period of immigration to the United States took place AFTER the Civil War). Thirdly, because slavery ended 140 years ago, and, while racial discrimination is still a very real thing in this country, no one alive today can seriously claim to have suffered due to slavery.

the effects of slavery are still felt today, saying otherwise is just ignorant

I was at least the 5th generation in my family to go to college. Each generation in my family inherited some money (not a lot) and a lot of privilege/advantages that most blacks have not.

i've read some of your other posts and replies on topics similar to this...glad to see other white folks who get it

The funny thing is, the more I read about this, the more I realize how little I do know. (Years ago, I did however, have an excellent black history professor which provided me with the basics).

Many more whites did not. They toiled generation after generation in factories just like black folk. In many cases, they suffered the same types of discrimination as blacks often being called "white niggers". Don't they deserve reparations too???

The reparation mentality is the notion that somehow this condition and state is unique to black people. It IS NOT. What you're trying to do is transform a CLASS WAR into a RACE WAR. And I'm sure that the fat cats on top of the system just LOVE the notion of reparations because it keeps the races at each others throats for yet another generation.

:eyes:

WHY THEN, is the percentage of blacks in poverty THREE TIMES as high as the percentage of whites in poverty?

24% of blacks in poverty vs. 8% of whites in poverty
(US CENSUS BUREAU STATS)

EXPLAIN WHY THAT IS.

and i know all about NINA and the filthy tenements and all of that. but it doesn't matter. once they figured out that they looked like the english folk, they fit in no problem.

and i agree that class is an enormous issue in this country that is far overlooked.

but you cannot separate class from race when there are dire class inequalities between the races.

even comparing poor white folks with poor black folks you can get an idea of how bad the problem really is.

poor white people are much more likely to live in all white, typically middle class (low crime, low poverty) neighborhoods. poor white kids are more likely to go to middle class schools that are fairly well funded. poor white kids are more likely to go to college.

and on and on and on.

yes, class IS an issue but you cannot separate it from race.

"Thirdly, because slavery ended 140 years ago, and, while racial discrimination is still a very real thing in this country, no one alive today can seriously claim to have suffered due to slavery."

Go tell that to all the little boys and girls who are born into the projects and ghettos every day.

Go tell that to all of the innocent black men who were convicted by all white juries. Christ!! There are still innocent black men being released from prison today for crimes they didn't committ.

This place kills me.

If you're talking about the effects of racism today, that's racism reparations, not slavery reparations.

African Americans today are not oppressed today BECAUSE their ancestors were slaves but because THEY are not white.

Slavery? Jim Crow? Segregation?

Racism against blacks is a vicious cycle that started with slavery.

If Racism weren't there to begin with, slavery would not have taken the form it did.

capitalism, greed, wealth. Slavery was purely economic. Hard to start paying for labor when you've had it free for all of those years.

If slavery were purely economic it would not have been limited to blacks as it ultimately was.

But in fact it was ultimately limited to one race.

Racism is responsible for American slavery. Slavery did not produce racism.

Unfortunately, they tended to get sick and die. They also tended to run away. They started importing African slaves and found that they survived better, less likely to run away in a strange, and worked out better as slaves than the Native peoples.
What we forget is that slavery did not start in the New World. Other Africans enslaved Africans for centuries before the Europeans came into the slave trade. For the most part, the European slave buyer would show up with a boat and money and did not go out and kidnap anyone. The North American slave trade did increase the demand for slaves, which probably did increase the total number of enslaved people.
Europeans were indentured servants, but were found to be less suitable for plantation work because they were less used to the climate and came down with malaria more often than the Africans, many who were naturually immune (recessive sickle cell trait gives immunity to malaria). They were also more likely to run away. Before racism was prevelent, they had also enlisted slaves to join with them against their masters.
Racism became a way to justify African slavery amongst a the Christian colonists who embraced the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is true that racism may have existed before slavery, but it was not the cause of slavery and slavery greatly increased racism in the colonies, which later became the U.S.

Natives also had enough of a power base to fight, to run away, to resist. Didn't make sense to pursue that option.

And I think the reason WHITE slavery didn't last has more to do with race than resistence to malaria. Slavery was around in the US before the southern plantations.

Racism and economics fueled slavery. But slavery does not fuel racism.

When white cops harass a black kid it's because of racism, not slavery. When a black woman is told an available apartment is for rent it's because of racism, not slavery.

Where a case can be made regarding harm directly related to reparations I think there might be something that can be addressed. It's one of the reasons I support affirmative action.

But otherwise what's being talked about is racism reparations, which is a very different thing.

The Southern plantation was around by the time slavery was common and predominately black although the crops were different:rice, sugar cane, and then tobacco. I am not saying that racism didn't play a part in causing the institution to become exclsuively black. It is much easier to keep someone a slave for life and make their children slaves if they are easily distinguishable from non slaves.
I do think that slavery intensified racism, originally to justify slavery, and is one reason that Southerners tend to be more racist than Northerners. To them, slave=inferior and slave=black. Just after the Civil War, people who had been, by law, been inferior to whites suddenly weren't inferior by law. Many Conferates were stripped of their rights under the law while those who they had grown up with being inferior, by law, were given rights. This angered many of them and they went back to oppressing the freed blacks while they could by Jim Crow Laws. These laws weren't eliminated until the 1960's. Many people today were alive when this happened. Of course, there were whites who were upset that no one was inferior to them under the law. Some of them were still upset and taught this attitude to their children. We shouldn't pretend either that people aren't affected by growing up inferior under the law either.

on the subject of slavery and racism.

You should try reading some history. Slavery existed in Africa long before any slaves were exported from Africa. The earliest African slave traders were victorious tribes selling off their captives, and Arabs. LONG before any whites got into the act. What we think of as "racism" was a nineteenth-century perversion of Charles Darwin's ideas, which was used as a JUSTIFICATION for slavery. To say "racism produced slavery" is astoundingly ignorant.

every thread on the subject here further convinces me of that.

could get better goodies by selling their own african slaves to the white guys with better toys.

white people were just cashing in on what black people were doing to each other long before the white man ever appeared.

human racism is something that has been with people since people began.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

college. His biological grandmother grew up with Jim Crow laws, his great grandmother was a sharecropper (essentially a *free* slave) in the early 1900's and her mother was a slave. No one in his family has ever owned property.

He is essentially only two generations from slavery. Just because the Emancipation Proclamation was written, doesn't mean blacks had access to opportunity.

(We have an open adoption)

:thumbsup:

Or that blacks who have been adopted by upper middle class white families shouldn't receive reparations?

I agree with both. I think it should be means tested. Those, that defied the odds and are exceptions to the rules, don't need it. Most people are not exceptions to the rules and deserve it.

For a couple of reasons. The newly freed slaves should have been justly compensated, as they were promised, but I believe that never happened. If there were reparations paid, it would be paid to the descendents of slaves. To be fair, it would have to be paid to only and everyone who could prove that they were descended from an American slave of African descent. That might inlcude some people who are not considered black. Reparations would be paid out of the budget. There of course is the question of how much should be paid to each person, which may be a big question. A small amount might be more of an insult than nothing at all. A large amount would be costly and might result in further cutting of social programs to pay for the reparations.
Reardless of the amount of the reparations, there may be a large amount of hostility from people who did not get reparations. This could be a very bad thing and actually increase racial tensions.
It doesn't matter my personal opinion on whether or not descendents of slaves deserve reparations. What matters what is good and practical and realistic for this country.

DO you ask/tell people to pay whose families weren't even here before 1866? For families that were here then and fought hard against slavery, are they supposed to pay?

There is no way to fairly take or distribute assets.

And whenever people say things like "racial oppression still exists" it indicates that this is not about slavery reparations but about unfairness reparations which isn't limited to african americans.

If we say most African Americans today are descended from slaves I have no problem offering scholarships to try to level the playing field a bit.

No offense, but so many segments of American society have been persecuted since the beginning, albeit not slaves, but still discriminated against.

Frankly, it seems unfair to give someone whose ancestors might have been slaves, our money, even though we've never done anything to them! What sort of economic sense does it make? None. Where's the logic in it? There is none. My neighbor gets a huge sum of our money because they're black, and I don't because I'm white? It's absurd. Why is money the answer anyway? We should continue the fight to end racism and repair the damage left by slavery in our society through public discourse, not like this. I thought the point of America was hard work and personal responsibility, not a free ride. Anyone who supports slave reparations doesn't understand what it is to be an American, considering it's one of the most un-American ideas to come along in some time. :eyes:

Gee, I wonder what percentage of blacks compared to whites were given mortgages by banks to purchase property (homes)? We KNOW there are big gaps even today. And we KNOW that homeownership is one of the MAIN vehicles for transimission of weatlh (be it big or small) from one generation to the next.

Access to education has a MAJOR impact on access to opportunity and has multi generational effects.

http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/jim_crow_laws.htm
Jim Crow" Laws
Click to see larger image. ( K) From the 1880s into the 1960s, a majority of American states enforced segregation through "Jim Crow" laws (so called after a black character in minstrel shows).

Nurses No person or corporation shall require any white female nurse to nurse in wards or rooms in hospitals, either public or private, in which negro men are placed. Alabama
Buses All passenger stations in this state operated by any motor transportation company shall have separate waiting rooms or space and separate ticket windows for the white and colored races. Alabama

Railroads The conductor of each passenger train is authorized and required to assign each passenger to the car or the division of the car, when it is divided by a partition, designated for the race to which such passenger belongs. Alabama

Restaurants It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment. Alabama

Pool and Billiard Rooms It shall be unlawful for a negro and white person to play together or in company with each other at any game of pool or billiards. Alabama

Toilet Facilities, Male Every employer of white or negro males shall provide for such white or negro males reasonably accessible and separate toilet facilities. Alabama

Intermarriage The marriage of a person of Caucasian blood with a Negro, Mongolian, Malay, or Hindu shall be null and void. Arizona

Intermarriage All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent to the fourth generation inclusive, are hereby forever prohibited. Florida

Cohabitation Any negro man and white woman, or any white man and negro woman, who are not married to each other, who shall habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room shall each be punished by imprisonment not exceeding twelve (12) months, or by fine not exceeding five hundred ($500.00) dollars. Florida

Education The schools for white children and the schools for negro children shall be conducted separately. Florida

Juvenile Delinquents There shall be separate buildings, not nearer than one fourth mile to each other, one for white boys and one for negro boys. White boys and negro boys shall not, in any manner, be associated together or worked together. Florida

Mental Hospitals The Board of Control shall see that proper and distinct apartments are arranged for said patients, so that in no case shall Negroes and white persons be together. Georgia

Intermarriage It shall be unlawful for a white person to marry anyone except a white person. Any marriage in violation of this section shall be void. Georgia

Barbers No colored barber shall serve as a barber white women or girls. Georgia

Burial The officer in charge shall not bury, or allow to be buried, any colored persons upon ground set apart or used for the burial of white persons. Georgia

Restaurants All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license. Georgia

Amateur Baseball It shall be unlawful for any amateur white baseball team to play baseball on any vacant lot or baseball diamond within two blocks of a playground devoted to the Negro race, and it shall be unlawful for any amateur colored baseball team to play baseball in any vacant lot or baseball diamond within two blocks of any playground devoted to the white race. Georgia

Parks It shall be unlawful for colored people to frequent any park owned or maintained by the city for the benefit, use and enjoyment of white persons...and unlawful for any white person to frequent any park owned or maintained by the city for the use and benefit of colored persons. Georgia

Wine and Beer All persons licensed to conduct the business of selling beer or wine...shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room at any time. Georgia

Reform Schools The children of white and colored races committed to the houses of reform shall be kept entirely separate from each other. Kentucky

Circus Tickets All circuses, shows, and tent exhibitions, to which the attendance of...more than one race is invited or expected to attend shall provide for the convenience of its patrons not less than two ticket offices with individual ticket sellers, and not less than two entrances to the said performance, with individual ticket takers and receivers, and in the case of outside or tent performances, the said ticket offices shall not be less than twenty-five (25) feet apart. Louisiana

Housing Any person...who shall rent any part of any such building to a negro person or a negro family when such building is already in whole or in part in occupancy by a white person or white family, or vice versa when the building is in occupancy by a negro person or negro family, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five ($25.00) nor more than one hundred ($100.00) dollars or be imprisoned not less than 10, or more than 60 days, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court. Louisiana

The Blind The board of trustees shall...maintain a separate building...on separate ground for the admission, care, instruction, and support of all blind persons of the colored or black race. Louisiana

Intermarriage All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent, to the third generation, inclusive, or between a white person and a member of the Malay race; or between the negro a nd a member of the Malay race; or between a person of Negro descent, to the third generation, inclusive, and a member of the Malay race, are forever prohibited, and shall be void. Maryland

Railroads All railroad companies and corporations, and all persons running or operating cars or coaches by steam on any railroad line or track in the State of Maryland, for the transportation of passengers, are hereby required to provide separate cars or coaches for the travel and transportation of the white and colored passengers. Maryland

Education Separate schools shall be maintained for the children of the white and colored races. Mississippi

Promotion of Equality Any person...who shall be guilty of printing, publishing or circulating printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between whites and negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine or not exceeding five hundred (500.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both. Mississippi

Intermarriage The marriage of a white person with a negro or mulatto or person who shall have one-eighth or more of negro blood, shall be unlawful and void. Mississippi

Hospital Entrances There shall be maintained by the governing authorities of every hospital maintained by the state for treatment of white and colored patients separate entrances for white and colored patients and visitors, and such entrances shall be used by the race only for which they are prepared. Mississippi

Prisons The warden shall see that the white convicts shall have separate apartments for both eating and sleeping from the negro convicts. Mississippi

Education Separate free schools shall be established for the education of children of African descent; and it shall be unlawful for any colored child to attend any white school, or any white child to attend a colored school. Missouri

Intermarriage All marriages between...white persons and negroes or white persons and Mongolians...are prohibited and declared absolutely void...No person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood shall be permitted to marry any white person, nor shall any white person be permitted to marry any negro or person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood. Missouri

Education Separate rooms be provided for the teaching of pupils of African descent, and said rooms are so provided, such pupils may not be admitted to the school rooms occupied and used by pupils of Caucasian or other descent. New Mexico

Textbooks Books shall not be interchangeable between the white and colored schools, but shall continue to be used by the race first using them. North Carolina

Libraries The state librarian is directed to fit up and maintain a separate place for the use of the colored people who may come to the library for the purpose of reading books or periodicals. North Carolina

Militia The white and colored militia shall be separately enrolled, and shall never be compelled to serve in the same organization.No organization of colored troops shall be permitted where white troops are available, and while white permitted to be organized, colored troops shall be under the command of white officers. North Carolina

Transportation The...Utilities Commission...is empowered and directed to require the establishment of separate waiting rooms at all stations for the white and colored races. North Carolina

Teaching Any instructor who shall teach in any school, college or institution where members of the white and colored race are received and enrolled as pupils for instruction shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each offense. Oklahoma

Fishing, Boating, and Bathing The Commission shall have the right to make segregation of the white and colored races as to the exercise of rights of fishing, boating and bathing. Oklahoma

Mining The baths and lockers for the negroes shall be separate from the white race, but may be in the same building. Oklahoma

Telephone Booths The Corporation Commission is hereby vested with power and authority to require telephone companies...to maintain separate booths for white and colored patrons when there is a demand for such separate booths. That the Corporation Commission shall determine the necessity for said separate booths only upon complaint of the people in the town and vicinity to be served after due hearing as now provided by law in other complaints filed with the Corporation Commission. Oklahoma

Lunch Counters No persons, firms, or corporations, who or which furnish meals to passengers at station restaurants or station eating houses, in times limited by common carriers of said passengers, shall furnish said meals to white and colored passengers in the same room, or at the same table, or at the same counter. South Carolina

Child Custody It shall be unlawful for any parent, relative, or other white person in this State, having the control or custody of any white child, by right of guardianship, natural or acquired, or otherwise, to dispose of, give or surrender such white child permanently into the custody, control, maintenance, or support, of a negro. South Carolina

Libraries Any white person of such county may use the county free library under the rules and regulations prescribed by the commissioners court and may be entitled to all the privileges thereof. Said court shall make proper provision for the negroes of said county to be served through a separate branch or branches of the county free library, which shall be administered by custodian of the negro race under the supervision of the county librarian. Texas

Education shall provide schools of two kinds; those for white children and those for colored children. Texas

Theaters Every person...operating...any public hall, theatre, opera house, motion picture show or any place of public entertainment or public assemblage which is attended by both white and colored persons, shall separate the white race and the colored race and shall set apart and designate...certain seats therein to be occupied by white persons and a portion thereof , or certain seats therein, to be occupied by colored persons. Virginia

Railroads The conductors or managers on all such railroads shall have power, and are hereby required, to assign to each white or colored passenger his or her respective car, coach or compartment. If the passenger fails to disclose his race, the conductor and managers, acting in good faith, shall be the sole judges of his race. Virginia

Intermarriage All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mulattos, Mongolians, or Malaya hereafter contracted in the State of Wyoming are and shall be illegal and void. Wyoming