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.
I don’t have a problem with the concept of reparations. I actually think its a Biblical concept (that pesky Old Testament). What I wonder is whether or not they equate to justice. Are we satisfied that, since slavery was institutional, the institution makes repairs?
What if they came without a raise in taxes? What if it were simply a matter of shifting money in the existing budget? In that case, you wouldn’t be paying any more than you already do.
Also, and here’s where the crux of the issue lies, do you think there is such a thing as institutional guilt?
This^. If we are to have reparations then instead of discussing it on the periphery, Democrats need to run on this as a central part of every Democratic candidates position. Only then, and with the resulting victory of the Democrats in the Senate and the House and the Executive can the country agree that there has been sufficient support for reparations to make it happen.
Put it in the Democratic Platform. Have every Democrat in the country state that they will support reparations. And then we can move forward.
How much is enough? What does every descendant of slaves want? How much will make them happy?
Blah blah blah…
You and I pay for many things that we may not support. I am paying for a wall I don’t support.
But paying for a human rights atrocity is taboo?!
I hope and pray the Dems completely adopt this as their platform. Expose the people who at the very least don’t even support the notion of reparations… even if it is tough to implement.
