What other criteria is there… I’ll self identify with that too. And who’s going to check anyway
She was a descendant of slaves. The fact that the slave owner raped his property doesn’t make her ancestors any less of a slave.
Did this woman’s slave ancestors get any inheritance from their slave owner? You know for being a blood relative?
Being a slave descendant… clearly you haven’t even attempted to read the thread.
It has a lot to due with culture and where you are at.
I had to learn how to navigate the racial minefield early. I was raised by whites; from a cultural standpoint I can’t relate to the black community as much as I would like to because I haven’t really experienced what it’s like to be black in the Western world outside of a few exceptions.
I just try to be understanding of people’s viewpoints.
But she’s also related to the rapist… Why is she rewarded for being related to slaves and not be punished for being related to a rapists?
I have no slave holding ancestors, so she’s more guilty than I am…
I dunno if I’d say all that.
Certainly the blood of Union soldiers played a large role. And I think America has done the best job it could have done to try and rectify the crimes that were committed.
But all too often people neglect to mention that 100,000 black men fought under the union flag against the confederacy. It wasn’t just a white man’s war.
And that’s where reparations get extremely confusing and cause problems.
Even though some won’t admit it there a bunch of southern whites who have a black ancestor or two.
Despite it being a cultural taboo “relations” (and I use quotations because most of the time it wasn’t consensual) between white men and enslaved black women were extremely common all across the slave South during the antebellum era.
Because it was against her will? You didn’t think this talking point through… did you?
Was she a part of the family? Meaning was she living in the “big house” able to leave and go freely just like the wife and kids of the slave owner?
It’s not confusing… at least not the example Cratic laid out.
Consensual relationships between slave owner and slave were virtually non-existent.
Where I can get confusing is relationships generations later where you find out that you married a white woman who’s parents/grandparents owned your parents or grandparents.
That would be awkward to say the least.
For the politicians, yes, it is nothing but pandering for votes; they have no intention of actually following thru on any of it.
Kind of like having Mexico pay for the wall?
I believe that if we can get control of the WH and Senate… reparations will be pushed through. I’d love to see the politicians explain why they are against this without sounding like insensitive racist ■■■■■■■■■
Reparations paid. It was only supposed to be 1 year.
1865-1910 is a lot longer than 7 years. Obviously it worked.
Why? Why on earth would that be confusing?
Was that for the descendants of mistreated Jews?
This is why the DNC only wants to have debates in friendly arenas. They know that CNN, NBC and others of that ilk will not press the candidates for any details. Who pays, who receives and how much will not be addressed.
Dude. sooner or later your class of clowns will need to offer their proposals or back off. Right?
For the record, I’m predicting that the top candidates will back off, then blame racism as they typically do.
Cuz they suck.
I bet he is at the very least a descendant of a woman. Want to talk about how they were treated by the US government for much of our history?
I thought we were discussing descendants? His/her point is, the child of a slave and her rapist, do they get reparations or pay them?
Okay if you think that is good and want the president, senate and house, put that in the Democratic platform and if you think all the Democrats will be for the rest of the country to pay for this, not just do a study of it, put out exactly your platform, put that up front as your policy in their campaigns and not hide it. Why I as a Mexican American, why my wife whose descendents came from Europe 50 years after slaver ended, should pay you for something that we had nothing to do with. Much of the population of the US, like the Europeans who came in mass migration in the early 20th century, Asians earlier, many others, will have to pay Black Americans for an institution that was eliminated 150 years ago. and I guess the government has to do much DNA testing to see if they were slaves, have to check who was really a slave . So all those populations in the North that did not have slavery, if they never helped to enslave people, do they owe money too? And again, many of those in Africa, are enslaved right now by Muslims, I guess doesn’t interest those pushing for this right now. If they plan to have some kind of campaign for reparation, that should be in every Democratic running for the house and senate, even in the red states.I wonder how popular this would be even in blue states. Maybe sample it in California, they have a lot of propositions in there, ask if they think your specific proposition will pass. Oh, but California didn’t become a State until only about 10 years before slavery ended. What about Hawaians, Alaskans. This idea is absurd, but if you specifically want this to be a campaign issue, this must not be put to the background, but put it in the front, but also deal with the fact that most people are not descendents of slave owners, how to specifically claim why I as a Mexican American and my wife as a person needs to pay for a fund fo pay for descendents of slavery for 150 years ago.