Reperations..........

[funkedup]

Affirmative action is a racist income redistribution program.  The government takes jobs and other benefits away from deserving whites and gives them to undeserving non-whites.

Welfare and Social Security and the various medical handout programs also constitute an income redistribution that benefits non-whites.  I have seen statistics (although I don't have them handy, sorry) which show that blacks are overrepresented in these programs, that a black is much more likely than a white to recieve government assistance.  Put another way, the average black recieves more government assistance (monetary) than the average white.  Likewise, the average white pays more taxes into this system than the average black.  Therefore, regardless of intent, the system is effectively a racist income redistribution program which benefits blacks and hurts whites.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

While we're asking for reperations...

I demand reperations from those who concieved me on this toejamty planet!

Funny, a bunch of cracka bellybutton crackas arguing over who is more racist...

You all are racist bigots, and Animal hates you for that! Damn crackas!
-SW

[Airhead]

Originally posted by funkedup

Welfare and Social Security and the various medical handout programs also constitute an income redistribution that benefits non-whites.  I have seen statistics (although I don't have them handy, sorry) which show that blacks are overrepresented in these programs, that a black is much more likely than a white to recieve government assistance.  Put another way, the average black recieves more government assistance (monetary) than the average white.  Likewise, the average white pays more taxes into this system than the average black.  Therefore, regardless of intent, the system is effectively a racist income redistribution program which benefits blacks and hurts whites.

So the qualifier for welfare programs is skin color??? Gee, and all this time I thought it was based upon income level.

Maybe the reason African Americans are more likely to require AFDC than whites is because more African Americans are below the poverty level, proportinately wise. However, whites are the single largest group collecting welfare in this Country, not blacks.

Not to confuse reperations with welfare benefits, especially in light of the past 200 posts where not one person has thought reperations are workable, but do you think we should abolish the welfare system entirely or just put quotas on the amount of African Americans, Mexican Americans or Asian Americans we allow to draw welfare? Please Funked, offer solutions instead of  rants bud.

StSanta, the argument African Americans are better off here than in Africa, and therefore shouldn't squeak if they are treated inequitably, is laughable. I'm Irish, make a lot more money than the average person living in Ireland, so I shouldn't squeak if I feel like I'm being treated unfairly?

[funkedup]

So the qualifier for welfare programs is skin color??? Gee, and all this time I thought it was based upon income level.

Note that I said EFFECTIVELY.  The qualifier is not race, it's income.  But it just so happens that this qualifier results in blacks recieving disproportionately more aid than whites.

However, whites are the single largest group collecting welfare in this Country, not blacks.

I won't deny that.  Simply because there are about 6 times as many whites as blacks.  But the average black gets a lot more aid than the average white.  And the average white pays more money into the system.  So on the whole there is a redistribution of income from whites to blacks.

Of course this is based on a memory of statistics that I saw a couple of years ago.  I guess I need to dig up the stats to make sure my memory doesn't suck.  If I'm wrong about it I'll happily eat my words.

do you think we should abolish the welfare system entirely or just put quotas on the amount of African Americans, Mexican Americans or Asian Americans we allow to draw welfare?

No, I think welfare and all the other handouts should be based on economic needs of the individuals and families involved.  But to deny that this "unbiased" method can result in a racial imbalance is foolish.

Please Funked, offer solutions instead of  rants bud.

You're going to have to pay me more.  And I'm just responding to ethernaut anyways.  Guess I shoulda said that.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by lazs2
saburo... yu add nothing... we don't even know where you stand on the matter.  You are cowardly in attacking those who lashed out and using that to foster a holier than thou attitude.   You come off like a knee jerk liberal.   Why don't you just say who it is that yu think is racist?   Why don't you just tell us how you stand on reparations?  

Why did I single out animal?   Well... gee... He is the only person that apears to be a black guy in the thread.   He would likely have something to gain by reparations.   The rest of us (so far as I know) would have something to lose so.... right or not.. we have self interest involved.

st santa... you are a racist with your swede vs ....oh.. wait a minute.. nevermind.
lazs

lazs2,
Let's clarify what racism is exactly. I'll give you my views on it and maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from. I don't see racism as including only those of the KKK, American Nazi Party, or any other white superiority group. Of course those groups represent racism from an extreme, fanatical, and radical viewpoint. I include in my racism and racist arguements anyone posting in a manner that they use "they",  "them", "N****rs" and/or "N word" when describing Black Americans and that they should "go back to where they came from", or "they should sue Africa", etc arguements.

If we're only talking about racists and racism in the extreme, fanatical "kill those that are different than me" definition, then I'll say that I doubt seriously anyone here to be that kind of racist.

However, if we're talking about those that might elect a politician that has a bearing on the laws of our towns, cities, states, and country that would pass laws that would try to keep the economic playing field uneven so that those enjoying the benefits of priviledge (as ethernaut so eloquently described), then I would claim those that supported those laws could be racist.

Unfortunetely, affirmative action laws and policies have been necessary. The proof is in how we as a nation are getting closer than ever of having that economic even playing field. We still have a ways to go but we'd have much farther to go if we didn't have affirmative action.

I have stated around 4-6 times (lost count) in this thread that I am against Reparation payments. It won't work. It has way to many variables to be enacted fairly. I would fear a backlash of discrimination of those in power positions (jobs, housing) as "washing their hands clean" and turning down those unfairly because "We're even now, and the slate is clean. I don't have to grant you a promotion, give you a homeowners loan, hire you, etc."

I feel that African Americans do have a legitimate complaint of discrimination. I'll ask you that are white this:
When is the last time you went into a white run store and the employees thought you would steal something?
You were looked over because you might 'do' something?
You didn't get that housing you wanted to rent/buy?
You didn't get that job you were seeking?
You didn't get that promotion you were seeking?
You were stopped by the police to be questioned?
Other people cross the street to avoid crossing your path?
Now I'll ask you this:
If you were black, do you think the above happens more?
Talking reality here.
if you were a black American, can you see the frustration you would feel just because of your skin pigmentation being dark?
24/7?

I'll try to continue tonight as I have to go to work.
Regards

[miko2d]

SaburoS: You were looked over because you might 'do' something?
You were stopped by the police to be questioned?
Other people cross the street to avoid crossing your path?
...frustration you would feel just because of your skin pigmentation being dark?

 "Just" because of skin pigmentation? How about the fact that blacks much more likely than whites to commit crimes and are about 200 times more likely than whites to commit violent interracial crimes?


You didn't get that housing you wanted to rent/buy?
You didn't get that job you were seeking?
You didn't get that promotion you were seeking?

 All the examples you cited are of a supposedly racist person hurting his economic situation and benefitting his non-racist (black) competitor.
 If you hire less-capable white instead of more-capable black, drive away black customers, etc. you basically create much more favorable environment (less competition, cheaper more capable workforce) to non-racist, especially black businesses. Why don't those prosper?

 Your implications are that majority of blacks cannot succeed by themsleves but only by whites' sufferance.
 Unfortunately those are absolutely correct. Blacks are less capable than whites and more prone to multitude of illnesses than whites. No amount of affirmative action would correct that.
 Of course destruction of their family values and work ethics by the handouts only made situation worse.

 miko

[funkedup]

As Ice Cube once said, "It's On"

[Wotan]

mikos post is good for another 100 replies

[StSanta]

StSanta, the argument African Americans are better off here than in Africa, and therefore shouldn't squeak if they are treated inequitably, is laughable. I'm Irish, make a lot more money than the average person living in Ireland, so I shouldn't squeak if I feel like I'm being treated unfairly?

Wel if your current treatment was the issue, we'd discuss that.

However, it's not your current treatment that's up to debate. Nor is the current treatment of blacks, in general.

What we're taking about is paying money to the descendants of slaves. how they're currently treated is unrelated. Whether they're  ebing subjected to a racist society is not what we're discussing.

We're discussing whether they should have reparations or not. And part of that debate is their current status vs where they WOULD have been had *their ancestors* (i.e not them) not been taken slaves.

Address this, and the other points. Building up straw man arguments is laughable. Ignoring other points is dishonest.

Hey, you started the mudslinging with the laughable comment. I'd contend that I mudsling with the best of them.

[JBA]

TODAY, there are increasing numbers of black professionals and scholars advocating reparations for slavery. New York Times staff writer Tamar Lewin, in her June 3 article "Calls for Slavery Reparations Getting Louder," says that a team of black lawyers have announced that they plan to sue the federal government and companies that have profited from slavery. . Slavery was an abomination. There's no argument, based on morality, that can justify slavery and its attendant evils. Indeed, were it possible, slave traders and slave owners should be forced to make reparations to those whom they enslaved. A similar case cannot be made for reparation payments to slave descendants.

Adjoa Aiyetoro, a legal consultant to the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America, says, "We're not raising claims that you should pay us because you did something to us 150 years ago. We are saying that we are injured today by the vestiges of slavery, which took away income and property that was rightfully ours." This vestige-of-slavery argument, as an explanation for the pathology seen in some black neighborhoods, is simply nonsense when you think about it.

Illegitimacy among blacks today is 70 percent. Only 41 percent of black males 15 years and older are married, and only 36 percent of black children live in two-parent families. These and other indicators of family instability and its accompanying socioeconomic factors such as high crime, welfare dependency and poor educational achievement is claimed to be the legacy and vestiges of slavery, for which black Americans are due reparations. Let's look at it.

In 1940, illegitimacy among blacks was 19 percent. From 1890 to 1940, blacks had a marriage rate slightly higher than whites. As of 1950, 64 percent black males 15 years and older were married, compared to today's 41 percent.

In Philadelphia, in 1880, two-parent family structure was: black (75.2 percent), Irish (82.2 percent), German (84.5 percent) and native white Americans (73.1 percent). In other large cities such as Detroit, New York and Cleveland, we find roughly the same numbers.

According to one study of black families (Herbert G. Gutman, "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925"), "Five out of six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents."

That study also found that, in Harlem between 1905 and 1925, only 3 percent of all families were headed by a woman under 30 and 85 percent of black children lived in two-parent families.

The question raised by these historical facts is: If what we see today in many black neighborhoods, as claimed by reparation advocates, are the vestiges and legacies of slavery, how come that social pathology wasn't much worse when blacks were just two or three generations out of slavery? Might it be that slavery's legacy and vestiges have a way, like diabetes, of skipping generations? In other words, for example, that devastating 70 percent rate of black illegitimacy simply skipped six generations -- it's a delayed effect of slavery.

I doubt whether the reparations gang could develop a coherent theory of the generation-skipping effects of slavery. Vestiges and legacy of slavery arguments are simply covers for another hustle similar to the $6 trillion dollar War on Poverty hustle.

Interestingly enough, reparations advocates are not demanding that white people be taxed in order to send checks out to individual black people. What they're demanding is for money to be put into a reparations fund from which they decide who receives how much for what purpose. For me, that has just as much appeal as the Rev. Leroy's call for people to send their money to him and he'll send it to God.

Further more who would pay? The government dosen't generate and money it only redistributes the money it takes from the citizenery in the form of taxes. This includes black tax paying citizens. So would blacks pay blacks. If not then all you are asking is for whites to give a hand out to blacks. I now ask who would receive? Would the likes of Tiger Woods, Michale Jordon, Barry Bonds, etc receive a check if not (because they have obviously not suffered from slavery) then you are creating another wellfair program for the poor.

Then there is the cost of the civil war and the lives lost. Considering that blacks were not alowed to fight (expc. massachetts 54th at end of the war) then the lost wages do to the lost wage earnes (white male causualties) should be looked at as well considering white males earned more the black males did in 1800's then the lost wages would at the very lest off set.

Then there is the fact the slavery was not illegal at the time it was used. So are we looking to pay for a crime that did not exist.

And then there is the question about the "cost " of slavery. It is said that the US beneffited from slavery. This is not true, when we look at the wealth of the states that used slave labor vs those to the north that didn't. It is clear that the Northern states had a greater weath, with free blacks who were paid for their labor.  

Then we have to consider the immigration into the US after 1865. As stated by many here their family members came here much later, (me 1930's) so would I be required to pay? Just because I'm white. And the recipients who are not AFRICAN (true slaves) but who came here from the carabian after 1865 and other "black" skined countries. Do they receive a check as well just becuase the are black?

Reperations is by defenition Racisim. It is the explotations of one race to benefit and other.

[H. Godwineson]

How would reparations be financed?  Would the government create a special fund and funnel tax money into it?  If so, then ALL Americans would be penalized for the effects of slavery.  That includes Japanese-Americans, Chinese-Americans, and all other groups of non-white Americans.  Or would there be a special tax for White-Americans only?  In that case, all whites would be penalized, regardless of whether or not their ancestors owned slaves and regardless of whether they, as individuals, have ever deliberately discriminated against a Black-American.

Regards, Shuckins

[lazs2]

saburo.. it may be easier to "blend in" as a white person.  So What?   Your apearance has a lot to do with things.  I tend to make snap judgements and threat assesments on people I see on the street... If you look like a banger or a biker or criminal... people will treat you as such.   Sorry... no time to bother with you.. If you jive talk your way through a job interview with me with your pants around your knees... I will smile and scratch you off the list.   In a crowd...I will talk to a clean black person with a smile before I will talk to the greasy white guy with the scowl.  

No mystery.   I still am resentful of affirmative action and tend to place less importance (respect less) a black orr woman in a position of power because of the very real chance that it was undeserved.   These days, I will ask for the white guy cause if he survived he had to be good...  The black or the woman?  who knows?  Don't care either way but don't have time to sort it all out.

reparations would be another program that hurts race relations for me personally... and after all.... that is the only person I can speak for.
lazs

[ethernaut]

Skimming this last bunch of posts, I'm eager to respond but must finish work and other important me-related tasks before playing. Until then, here is an article from The Onion that I'm sure y'all will find entertaining for different reasons.

The Onion
15-21 August 2002

COMMUNITY VOICES
By Wallace Rickard
Privileged White Male

Stereotypes Are A Real Time-Saver

I’m a busy guy. And, while I’d love to, I don’t have the time to get to know every person I encounter in the course of my daily life. So thank goodness I have a handy little device at my disposal that helps me know how to deal with just about anyone I come across: stereotypes. Yes, stereotypes are a real time-saver!

You have no idea how much this streamlines my day. For example, before I started using stereotypes, if I were trying to choose a podiatrist to treat my foot pain, I would be clueless. I would’ve tried tons of podiatrists of all different races before finding a really good one. But, armed with the stereotype that Asians are all really smart and studious, all I have to do is scan the yellow pages for podiatrists under the name “Chang”!

Stereotypes also work when I’m trying to decide on a place for lunch. I steer clear of any place that employs Arabs—not because Arabs are all terrorists, but because they tend to be filthy and have poor hygiene. By sticking to Caucasian-run establishments, I can avoid wasting weeks lying in bed with a debilitating food-borne illness. If I’m in a rush and have to eat fast, I’ll definitely avoid going to a place run by Jamaicans. They are sooo slow. Ever been to Jamaica? It takes, like, two hours to order a Coke down there.

Gender and age stereotypes can be just as useful as the racial ones. Let’s say you need to ask directions. I’d never ask a woman, because her answer could be unreliable. With a woman, you can never tell if “Aunt Flow” is in town, so she could be going through a mood swing and send you to Timbuktu. And women over 50 are completely out of the question because of their hot flashes. I won’t even ask a man over 60, because you never know when the ravages of Alzheimer’s could be setting in. That’s why the only people I trust to get me where I need to go are men under 60. White men, that is.

Stereotypes aren’t just a trick for leisure time. You can really speed through your work day with them, too. Right now, the firm I manage is looking to hire an accountant. Without stereotypes, I’d have to read every resume and interview dozens of candidates. Make no mistake, there’s still a lot of culling involved, because resumes rarely include photographs. But the first thing I do when a big stack of resumes shows up is throw out the Hispanic last names. This saves me hours right off the top.

After that, I make an “A-List” pile out of the Jewish-sounding names. According to the old stereotype, Jews are great with money, so those are the people I’m primarily interesting in interviewing. In the interest of fairness, though, I’d like to interview a few Christians, too. Only problem is, some Christians are black, and who ever heard of a black accountant? I want to screen out the blacks, but unfortunately, not every black person is names Tyrone or Laquisha, so I sometimes wind up accidentally calling one in for an interview.

To fix this problem, I’ve turned to—what else?—stereotypes. I’ve come up with this plan where I phone everyone in the Christian pile and ask whether they’d be interested in participating in a menthol-cigarette-and-malt-liquor taste-test (free, naturally). Boo-yah! An hour of phone calls later, and I’ve got my two master lists, Jews and white Christians. My competitors can flush all their free time down the crapper searching hither and yon for the actual best-qualified applicant, but Fast-Track Wally’s got Yankees tickets!

Yes, even a Polack can see that stereotypes are the busy man’s best friend!

[Kieran]

Saburos-

Guess I'll have to go into your "racist" column, as I cannot hope to avoid using common pronouns such as "they" and "them" when discussing groups of which I am not a member. Further, I have no interest in even trying.

[Pei]

Isn't there a Statute of Limitations around here somewhere? Or can I sue Staffo becuase Normans oppressed my Anglo-Saxon ancestors?