Slavery Reparations and 2020

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

***YOU CAN VOTE TWICE, ONCE FOR THE TOP THREE OPTIONS, ONCE FOR BOTTOM THREE OPTIONS.***
-----------------


So apparently Cory Booker is introducing a bill to commission a study about reparations for slavery. He isn't the only one to hop on board this train for the coming election, with the majority of the Democrat candidates supporting the idea.

This thread is to ask the P&R members a two-part question: Are you more likely to vote for a candidate who supports slavery reparations, and do you think that a a Democrat who supports it and wins the primary will be good for Trump's re-election odds, or bad?

Lets see if I can get the poll to work. Also, please feel free to expand your thoughts in the thread about your answer and why you feel so.


https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2019/04/09/cory-booker-to-introduce-reparations-commission-bill-in-the-senate/

Quote:NEW JERSEY (CNN) — Sen. Cory Booker announced Monday he will take the lead in the Senate on a proposal that would establish a commission to study possible reparations, an idea that has emerged as a key policy question in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary and won broad support from the candidates.

Such a commission would seek to remedy generations-worth of discrimination as a result of “overt policies fueled by white supremacy and racism that have oppressed African-Americans economically for generations,” the New Jersey Democrat said in a statement, in addition to policies “that have ushered millions of Americans into the middle class” but “systematically excluded blacks.”

“This bill is a way of addressing head-on the persistence of racism, white supremacy and implicit racial bias in our country,” Booker added. “It will bring together the best minds to study the issue and propose solutions that will finally begin to right the economic scales of past harms and make sure we are a country where all dignity and humanity is affirmed.”

The bill, originally introduced by former Rep. John Conyers of Michigan and currently sponsored in the House by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, has emerged as a key issue for 2020 Democrats — and an area of consensus. At the National Action Network Conference in New York last week, Rev. Al Sharpton questioned one presidential hopeful after another on the measure and the candidates vouched their support.

Now, Booker seems poised to emerge as the legislative leader on the issue.

The New Jersey senator has previously vented frustration that the question of reparations has been “reduced to a box to check on a presidential list, when this is so much more of a serious conversation,” as he told CNN’s Don Lemon during a recent town hall in Orangeburg, South Carolina.

“Do I support legislation that is race-conscious about balancing the economic scales?” Booker said. “Not only do I support it, but I have legislation that actually does it.”

On the campaign trail, Booker has promoted a “baby bonds” proposal that would give each child a savings account, with money added annually based on a family’s wealth — touting a Columbia University study that concluded such a program would “dramatically reduce racial wealth inequality.”

[fredtoast]

You are mixing up two different issues. Baby Bonds have nothing to do with slavery reparations.

I generally don't favor reparations to descendants of slaves, but I am in favor of policies that will help put African Americans on more equal footing. For example we need to change the law that ties school funding to local property taxes. Schools are ran by the state and every public school in the state should get the same funding.

Of all developed countries the United States ranks the highest in how much your parents wealth determines your wealth (google: intergenerational income elasticity). This is not land of equal opportunity. The children of wealthy parents get a huge head start over the children of the poor.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-10-2019, 06:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are mixing up two different issues.  Baby Bonds have nothing to do with slavery reparations.

I generally don't favor reparations to descendants of slaves, but I am in favor of policies that will help put African Americans on more equal footing.  For example we need to change the law that ties school funding to local property taxes.  Schools are ran by the state and every public school in the state should get the same funding.

Of all developed countries the United States ranks the highest in how much your parents wealth determines your wealth (google: intergenerational income elasticity).  This is not  land of equal opportunity.  The children of wealthy parents get a huge head start over the children of the poor.

I am not mixing up two different issues. He's ALSO in favor of slavery reparations. The Baby Bonds are just mentioned at the end of the article there and not what I was addressing.

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2019/04/09/cory-booker-introduce-reparations-bill-senate/3408903002/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/09/cory-booker-introduce-slavery-reparations-bill-senate/3409097002/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/08/politics/cory-booker-reparations-senate-bill/index.html

Please don't derail this thread with the very first reply.

[fredtoast]

(04-10-2019, 06:51 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I am not mixing up two different issues. He's ALSO in favor of slavery reparations. The Baby Bonds are just mentioned at the end of the article there and not what I was addressing.

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2019/04/09/cory-booker-introduce-reparations-bill-senate/3408903002/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/09/cory-booker-introduce-slavery-reparations-bill-senate/3409097002/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/08/politics/cory-booker-reparations-senate-bill/index.html

Please don't derail this thread with the very first reply.

I did not man you personally.  Just the article you linked.  It certainly implies that the Baby Bonds are part of the reparations.

[fredtoast]

BTW I have no idea if I am in favor of any of the reparation plans because I have no idea what they are.

Lots of poor African Americans are not descendants of slaves, but they were still held back by the racist vestiges of slavery. So I don't know what the propose to do about it.

[Dill]

(04-10-2019, 06:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are mixing up two different issues.  Baby Bonds have nothing to do with slavery reparations.

I generally don't favor reparations to descendants of slaves, but I am in favor of policies that will help put African Americans on more equal footing.  For example we need to change the law that ties school funding to local property taxes.  Schools are ran by the state and every public school in the state should get the same funding.

Of all developed countries the United States ranks the highest in how much your parents wealth determines your wealth (google: intergenerational income elasticity).  This is not  land of equal opportunity.  The children of wealthy parents get a huge head start over the children of the poor.

Got that right. It would take a generation, but that might be the thing most likely to erase the school achievement gap.  Not just for African-americans.

[*bfine32*]

[NATI BENGALS]

Another dumb ass idea.

I thought it was 2019.

Ok. If a slave owner is alive and wealthy they can pay the family of the slaves they owned. Other than that piss off. I bust my ass along side many races. My parents busted their asses before me. I have had a hard time getting jobs, loans, and i went to a public school. Guess what. Life aint fair.

While they are at it build a platform that also supports partial birth abortions and force transvestite rights on the people too. Good start by the dumbass dems in this busted ass two party bullshit to get the conman elected again.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I forgot to add. You can vote twice in the poll since it is a two part question. One for the top three choices, one for the bottom three.

[Belsnickel]

I have mixed feelings on reparations. As someone whose ancestry is a mixture of anti-slavery Anabaptists here from the mid-1700s and people who emigrated in the late 19th century, it would be easy for me to sit here and try to say this shouldn't be something i'm a part of. However, I do benefit from the vestiges of slavery that exist in the racism ever present in our society. Intergenerational mobility in this country is horrible, and it is worse for people of color than it is for white people. I am on track to be better off than my parents were, but not by much, and I am an abnormality in the dataset. When I look at my peers that grew up in my neighborhood, the same certainly isn't true for them. I have it a little easier because I am a white male than some of those peers have it.

It's easy to say it's an economic issue and not a racial one, but because there has been such a long history of oppression towards all minority groups, but especially the black community in wake of the end of slavery, there have been more barriers put in place such as codified racism with Jim Crow or redlining, or the more covert and hidden discrimination they still face, today. Generations have faced these struggles, and now with intergenerational mobility being so difficult and socioeconomic inequality being arguably the worse it has been in the history of our country, we can't deny the racial components of this issue.

We just need to figure out what to do about it. How do we fix the racial inequalities without causing more racial animus than we are already seeing? The argument exists that the current state of things with certain segments of society is that they are becoming more explicitly racist due to their own economic instability and their perceived slighting by the government in favor of minorities that has been stoked by years of propaganda fueling this feeling.

[CJD]

A very touchy subject.
I would be less likely to vote for a candidate who is pro-reparations simply because in the general election, that would be a big favor to Trump.
This country is still deeply racist, so the idea of trying to base your campaign on an explicitly pro-black item is very dangerous. Maybe not so much in the primaries, but in the general, it'll be handing Trump millions of votes.

I understand the desire for reparations. This country, to a degree, is as successful as it is today due to the free labor it gained from slavery and the racism that followed the freedom of the slaves (both societal and economic) put black people at such a handicap that it's guaranteed that opportunities, land and wealth were lost as a direct result of the policies, laws and beliefs of this country's government.

However, the issue with reparations will be 3 key things:
1. How do you define who is eligible for it? Presumably, it won't be a racial level, as there are many Africans living in America who did not experience American slavery (as they came over from their home country after slavery had ended). So do you do an extensive genealogical study of the black residents in this country? Or maybe do you have an open application process that would allow people to come forward with their own proof before being able to claim reparations?

2. How much should you be given if your ancestors were slaves? If you rated work of each slave at an income adjusted rate (say, they are paid a certain amount of dollars per year that their ancestor(s) were slaves), how much would that come to? I imagine it would be rather massive. Especially since, owning land is one of the biggest money making prospects ever. So if a slave's work was worth a house's value (let's just say), then does the loss of that value mean that rent paid by all ancestors is also subject to reparations? And that doesn't even get into the potential investment value of any money that was lost as well. How do you define how a person would have invested their money, if they had it?

3. Who is meant to pay these reparations? Slavery was no doubt caused by the Government's laws, but they weren't the only ones who benefited from it. Do you require farmers whose relatives owned slaves to pay a portion? Do you do a genealogical study to find whose relatives owned slaves and put a tax on them? Or does the government just bare the full weight? And what economic impact will that have on those people/the government? 

It's a complicated process and I don't know how to best approach it all. I do think it's a topic worth discussing though, even if you limit the reparations to those subjected to Jim Crow Laws (as that would likely be easier to define).

But man, making that your platform when trying to unseat one of the most (openly) pro-racism incumbents we've had since the 60s is a difficult prospect. Especially when the majority of the voting base would not gain anything from it at all (and, as we know, most people only actually care about things that directly affect them). If you could galvanize the liberal sympathizers it could be a tremendous success. If Trump uses this to further galvanize his base, as well as moderate/fiscal conservatives, it could be an abject failure.

My perception of this country makes me fear the latter.

[Belsnickel]

(04-11-2019, 09:02 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote:

You race some good questions with this post, but I do have a counter argument to some of them. The issue of whether an African American has slave ancestors isn't entirely relevant to the overall purpose of reparations as it tends to be discusses. The idea of reparations is more about trying to make up for the racial disparity that exists in our socioeconomic system that is due in large part to slavery and the discrimination that followed. Black Americans that lack slave ancestry still suffer from the effects of this systemic racism that causes this socioeconomic disparity in our country.

I think this is one of the issues with the argument for reparations as a whole. When it is brought up, it is seen as redistribution because of slavery alone, which isn't the case. Slavery was a big part, yes, but by focusing on that it opens the door for those that say "I never owned slaves, so why should I have to pay them?" or it allows for the question of what to do about African Americans that don't have slave ancestors. When you look at it overall, talk about slavery, Jim Crow, the continued issues with socioeconomic inequality, etc., and discuss how the discrimination and oppression that has occurred since the end of slavery has kept the black community down and prevented them from being afforded the same opportunities as white people, which also means that white people have benefited from that oppression whether or not they were active in it, then it becomes a different conversation. Still one that will receive push back from those that are unwilling to see this point of view, but one that is harder to dismiss as easily by saying "my ancestors didn't own slaves, why should I pay!?"

[Millhouse]

If slavery Reparations ever should get passed, should the U.S. Government sue England and some EU countries to help pay for it? After all they the ones responsible for establishing slavery and the slave trade over here, mainly England concerning the U.S. lands. After all, if Europe back then wasn't as deeply racist as it was, then none of this would even be an issue.

I say yes, the United States should not be the only ones that has to pay for the sins of the past. The old European masters that began all of it should also have to flip the bill.

That said, I am against reparations in general. Just keep working on making it an even playing field for every race.

[GMDino]

If the idea is just to commission a study I don't personally have a problem with it.

Then I'd have to see what the results of the study would be before passing judgement on whether it is a good plan or not.

[*Nately120*]

If Trump doesn't say "We already have reparations for the ancestors of slaves in place...it's called welfare" then he's missing a hanging curve.

[*michaelsean*]

"OK but once we write those checks I don't want to hear another word." That's going to be a lot of people.

[Au165]

Strictly from a perception point of view, they need to get off the word "reparations" it doesn't poll well and is an instant loser with middle America. The other issue is they need to abandon any idea of cutting checks because that will simply fan racial tensions and that rhetoric will just be heated up during the campaign by Trump. If they want to go about this it needs to be through more assistance based programs and funneling of funds to predominantly African American areas to use to help improve the quality of life in those areas. While the funds will essentially be used to help the African American population it will be an easier pill to swallow for middle American than some idiot posting pictures of a check on social media and saying he is going to go by something with it and basically baiting others to fight with them.

My belief is that this single issue may sink the Democratic platform in 2020 if they don't go about it intelligently. They are trying to get a little too liberal and I think it will come back to bite them. You are in a prime position to steal some moderates, but if you go too far left you blow that up and this is one of those issues that could be a step too far.

[Benton]

(04-11-2019, 12:38 PM)Millhouse Wrote: If slavery Reparations ever should get passed, should the U.S. Government sue England and some EU countries to help pay for it? After all they the ones responsible for establishing slavery and the slave trade over here, mainly England concerning the U.S. lands. After all, if Europe back then wasn't as deeply racist as it was, then none of this would even be an issue.

I say yes, the United States should not be the only ones that has to pay for the sins of the past. The old European masters that began all of it should also have to flip the bill.

That said, I am against reparations in general. Just keep working on making it an even playing field for every race.

Given that slavery was a part of most cultures throughout history, the "reparation" issue seems kind of crazy, personally, and for this issue. Where would it stop? How far back do you go? Do we partner up with 23andme to track down some guy who originated in Mesopotamia and now owes the world's population $700 trillion?

And I don't usually like that kind of argument. Like with the statues when people ask "how far do we go, are we going to get rid of Lincoln!?" 

[Dill]

(04-12-2019, 02:08 PM)Benton Wrote: Given that slavery was a part of most cultures throughout history, the "reparation" issue seems kind of crazy, personally, and for this issue. Where would it stop? How far back do you go? Do we partner up with 23andme to track down some guy who originated in Mesopotamia and now owes the world's population $700 trillion?

And I don't usually like that kind of argument. Like with the statues when people ask "how far do we go, are we going to get rid of Lincoln!?" 

Totally agr-- wait . . . who gets the reparations then if we go that far back?  I'm witholding judgment till its clear whether the French owe me for how the Saxons suffered under William I.  Should be getting some land back . . . .

[Dill]

(04-11-2019, 09:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You race some good questions with this post, but I do have a counter argument to some of them. The issue of whether an African American has slave ancestors isn't entirely relevant to the overall purpose of reparations as it tends to be discusses. The idea of reparations is more about trying to make up for the racial disparity that exists in our socioeconomic system that is due in large part to slavery and the discrimination that followed. Black Americans that lack slave ancestry still suffer from the effects of this systemic racism that causes this socioeconomic disparity in our country.

I think this is one of the issues with the argument for reparations as a whole. When it is brought up, it is seen as redistribution because of slavery alone, which isn't the case. Slavery was a big part, yes, but by focusing on that it opens the door for those that say "I never owned slaves, so why should I have to pay them?" or it allows for the question of what to do about African Americans that don't have slave ancestors. When you look at it overall, talk about slavery, Jim Crow, the continued issues with socioeconomic inequality, etc., and discuss how the discrimination and oppression that has occurred since the end of slavery has kept the black community down and prevented them from being afforded the same opportunities as white people, which also means that white people have benefited from that oppression whether or not they were active in it, then it becomes a different conversation. Still one that will receive push back from those that are unwilling to see this point of view, but one that is harder to dismiss as easily by saying "my ancestors didn't own slaves, why should I pay!?"

Important point here.  White Americans and their economy all benefited from slavery, whether they were for it or not.

Also, in most states until 1964 whites benefited from greater access to higher ed--reverse affirmative action.  Doubtful that any white students during this period saw any connection between their enlarged access to this resource and the race issue.

Georgetown U is moving in an interesting direction, taking direct responsibility for once owning and selling 272 slaves. And the students are down with it.  https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/georgetown-votes-to-raise-tuition-by-27-to-pay-for-reparations.html