Example Site

The motto:

They Stole Us
They Sold Us
They Owe Us

... has caused quite an uproar lately. What with Wachovia's ancestors using slaves as collateral, etc. But is the motto entirely true?


Questions for Debate:

1.) Do reparations bring justice to those oppressed? Even if none alive today took part in the slave trade (be it buyer, seller, or slave)?

2.) Should reparations be given? If it was an acceptable practice of the day do we "owe them?"

3.) Are those who call for reparations not the same people who rally behind Affirmative Action, yet call for "equal rights?"


*Note: Not an Affirmative Action debate, please be wary of what you are saying and try not to offend any of the other members and or readers.*

1.) Do reparations bring justice to those oppressed? Even if none alive today took part in the slave trade (be it buyer, seller, or slave)?

The difficulty with this question is: where do we draw the line? In the history of the world slavery was, for a really, really long time, a socially accepted aspect of society. The Greeks and especcially the Romans used to have slaves from different parts of the Mediterranean. Slavery formed an essential part of those societies. Europe in the Middle Ages was characterized and based on slave labourers. During the 17th century, the time the first Africans were transported by an Dutch ship to America, nobody saw this as a wrong thing to do. But slavery didn't only occur in Europe, in Asia and Africa it was as much a part of society as anywhere else.

If every nation that oppressed other peoples and supported slavery should be paying reparations then the whole world would be paying eachother. Africans would be paying eachother, Europeans would pay eachother and large parts of the world, the U.S. would be paying, the Chinese would be paying etc, etc.

Reparation is a road that leads to nowhere, unless there is a clear dividing line, but a line like that is almost impossible to draw. The only thing that can be done is to keep the memory alive of those people who where oppressed and were used as slaves. Acknowledge the fact that also our forefathers did things we today do not accept any more.

2.) Should reparations be given? If it was an acceptable practice of the day do we "owe them?"

Apart from the things I stated above there is also the problem of different pardigms during the course of history. Every period has its own rules, its own morals, practices and mentality. One cannot expect descendants to apoligize for the acts of his ancestors. If today there would be a descendant of for example Napoleon should we hold him accountable for the deeds of his greatgreatgrandfather? So my answer to this question is no.

3.)Are those who call for reparations not the same people who rally behind Affirmative Action, yet call for "equal rights?"

Because I am not a citizen of the U.S. and do not have enough information about this subject, I cannot and will not answer this question.

Let me approach this question from a slightly different viewpoint.

My opposition to reparations for the practice of slavery is that it trivializes the horror of slavery and reduces it to dollars and cents. No amount of blood money can ever begin to reduce the impact of this tragedy on American history. If Osama bin Laden had a change of heart, and offered to give the United States one billion dollars for the families of the victims of 9/11, would that somehow make up for it?

If a company which has somehow benefited from slavery decides voluntarily to offer apologies, and offers some sort of charitable donations as a sign of goodwill, that's fine. That doesn't mean that slavery should ever be forgotten.

1. Reparations can never bring justice under any circumstances. There will never be justice for slavery.

2. No. For the reasons given above, whether or not it was "acceptable" is irrelevant.

3. It's hard for me to see how I can answer this question without getting into a debate about Affirmative Action. Take a look at the way this question was asked:



The use of the word "yet" reveals that the questioner assumes that "Affirmative Action" and "equal rights" are opposed in some way. I deny this premise, but I don't how to assert this without getting into a debate about Affirmative Action.

To answer the question directly, without getting into a debate, I suppose that many people who support reparations also support Affirmative Action. This isn't relevant to my oppostion to reparations.

1) I fail to see how taking money from people who were never slave owners or slave traders, and giving it to people who were never slaves will in any way, shape or form make up for slavery. The Civil War already paid that debt in blood in my opinion.

2) No. Reparations should only be given to people and in cases where those who were actually wronged are still alive to take the reparations.

3) Often yes. Affirmative Action is in fact nothing more than a justification for discrimination. To call for it in fact justifies all past discrimination as well, for those people too thought they had good reasons.

First of all, that website is kind of hard to take seriously. I'm sure you could have found people who advocate reparations with better reasoning and sans the conspiracy theories on the same page.

And onto the questions:

Questions for Debate:

1.) Do reparations bring justice to those oppressed? Even if none alive today took part in the slave trade (be it buyer, seller, or slave)?

It really depends on the kind of reparations. I elaborate on that in my answer to the second question. Whether anyone alive today was a part of it today is really, largely irrelevant. The effects of four centuries of free labor (hell, for descendants of people who freaking built the country in many ways, we should certainly have a lot more say in how it's run today instead of being ridiculed by the right and largely ignored by the left) coupled with another hundred years of societal oppression, coupled with practices today that appear on their face to be race-neutral but when studied have massively disproportional effects on black people, and I'd say that we have some pretty solid justifications for requesting government action/compensation. Nothing can bring complete and total justice though, for a history that has completely changed the way the white and black race view each other in America (probably permanently), but that doesn't mean that the government shouldn't - or indeed, doesn't have an obligation - to try to address problems that actions in history have caused and actions (or inaction, as the case may be) of the government today continue to support.

2.) Should reparations be given? If it was an acceptable practice of the day do we "owe them?"

The funny thing about the people who hate reparations the most is that usually, they are the staunchest advocates of sending unlimited monies forever to Israel. The aid we give Israel is nothing if not reparations. Israel would have never been established if not for the Holocaust, and in fact it was established because the world community came to a consensus that a group of people had been viciously persecuted and oppressed and therefore needed their own country where they could (theoretically) live amongst each other without fears of widespread discrimination and oppression. All money and support and aid given to Israel from thereon out is essentially us feeling obligated to do so because Jews have been treated so terribly in the past. And in fact, if you criticize Israel very few people will hesitate to call you anti-Semitic.

America didn't cause the Holocaust.

America never hosted any concentration camps.

And yet, we... as opposed to oh, say, Germany, are the ones paying for them to live in their own country, founded out of a need to be protected from racists.

I think all that money we spent on Israel then, and continue to spend on them now, should have gone towards a country for blacks. America should have tried to makeup for the effects of it's racist legacies against minorities in her own country before trying to remedy racist legacies against minorities halfway around the world.

I'm not trying to hijack this thread and turn it into a debate on Israel - and if you notice, I've deliberately avoided any talk about Palestine and whether the land the country was founded on was legitimately taken - but I think it's a highly relevant point because it's a similar situation. The Jews were oppressed by much of Europe, and America supports Israel 110% no matter what they do. Blacks were oppressed by America, and yet for some reason America can't fathom giving financial support to them. We are gladly paying for the sins of European ancestors, but recoil at the thought of taking responsibility for the sins of our own.

As for my personal opinion, I disagree with the concept of reparations in the form of money given directly to people of African descent. I would much, much rather that money be given to boost inner-city school funding to the same level as their suburban counterparts, Medicaid, housing grants, public transportation... all the things that strongly impact the success and survival of black people today. I am a strong believer in leveling the playing field, and that means ensuring that everyone has the same opportunities to get ahead in life, mostly in education. But I do believe the government should play a part in ensuring that happens and should play an active role in helping the black community because they are in part responsible for it's state today. You just can't deny this. I think that there are several complex reasons and layers behind the state the black community is in today, both internal and external. It has only been 40 years since the end of Jim Crow, after four centuries of continual oppression. The same people who say "ohhhh all that was soooo long ago" often fail to realize that forty years cannot complete undue the damage and cumulative effects of 400. White people, by virtue of being white, not only get the benefits of being part of the group of people who have controlled mostly every aspect of American society since it's beginning, but it's also the little things that add up to be a plus for them and a strike against black people. It's being more likely to get a loan with bad credit than a person of color with equally bad credit. It's being judged by a jury of your true peers. It's being handed a lighter jail sentence than a person of color who commits the same offense. It's being more likely to be able to find a job after incarceration than a felonious person of color. White privelege is very much alive and well, and after 400 years of slavery, lynchings, and third-class citizenship, for so many people to bristle up now and feel offended at the concept of monetary compensation when the effects are still so abundant is a little disgusting to me. People want to say that everything is potatoes and gravy in terms of race relations. People want to say that any racial conflict is all black peoples' fault because we're not assimilating. People want to act like there is absolutely no racism on the part of whites against blacks today in America, and in fact the only racist obstacle left is affirmative action. And these people only say such things, and in fact only could say such things, if they deliberately ignore the evidence of things to the contrary because it makes them uncomfortable. Many white people simply want to wish racism to go away and so when confronted with it, they ignore it, and many in fact take it a step further and blame the victim by trying to counter with some variation of the argument that "blacks are just as, and even moreso racist against whites" in order to deflect the magnifying glass off of their own prejudices. But the evidence is there and it is glaringly obvious to many black people, and the hatred of the concept of reparations is only adding insult to the injury of continuing to ignore the practices of racism today.

3.) Are those who call for reparations not the same people who rally behind Affirmative Action, yet call for "equal rights?"

Why did you try to hide your personal opinion in the form of a question? It's the same thing Zero Tolerance tried with "When whites become a minority in our country what will happen to America? What would happen besides becoming a second rate super power having to step aside for China and Russia." I mean, honestly, what kind of debate did you intend to start with that one? To phrase a question like that where you obviously are insinuating that people who push for reparations are the same people who advocate for affirmative action (which is probably true most of the time, but not necessarily vice-versa), but since they also push for equal rights, they are hypocrites because... I dunno, affirmative action is racist? How are you going to throw that in there and then ask us not to debate affirmative action?

I think Suzy made an excellent point when she brought up the US's blind support of Israel.

Anyways, I find it interesting that whenever the idea of reparations is thrown around, people constantly say "Well, I never owned any slaves, therefore I dont think black people need any reparations." Put in this context, it does seem rather silly to even think about giving reparations. But its not about ancestors owning slaves. Its about how slavery has affected blacks throughout history, and how that continues to affect them today. It wasn't until the 1960s that blacks were seen as equals under the law, regardless of what the 14th Amendment says. And I assure you, there are people who are alive that remember what it was like to be black in 60s. I also assume there are people alive who mistreated black people, even if they never owned slaves. Clearly, how blacks were treated in the 60s is a direct result of slavery, so while no one may have owned slaves, there were people who were mistreated and suffered for the crime of being born black.

I dont know exactly how I feel about reparations. I dont think that giving cash back to people will do any good as Victoria Silverwood pointed out. I am more inclined to agree with giving money to communities to improve services and education, which benefits all Americans. I think that this is definatley something that needs to be addressed, because too many people want ignore our countrys racist past and present, by claiming that maybe black people were/are disenfranchised, but its their problem, not our problem together.

This seems like an interesting debate. Whenever I see a debate like this that hasn't been responded to I just want to post saying "This is a good topic! Why aren't people debating this?!?" I can't though. So I'll revive the debate (hopefully) by posting again.

Anyway...

1. No. I think that they think that they are angry, but I think that they are trying to get money.

2. I think you bias the question, but I say no. I think I should look at this from a prisoner standpoint. Prisoners now, if they were falsely imprisioned, don't get anything when they are released. They can't sue the government. Once again, if we consider being a hit man a valid practice in 2020, we don't have to pay serial killers of 2000.

3. I don't really know how this can't be an affirmative action question...I have no idea if they are the same. I think it is an irrelevant question actually. Any clarification?

I will keep it brief an simple, so that I will not offend anyone, however does offend in your eyes mean....disagree? That's a rhetorical question. So my answer to you my friend is YES.YES.YES. Thank you!

Republican huh? The difference is, slaves did nothing wrong. Prisoners such as murderers,thieves,etc. etc. did! I am Native an I get things back, why not give back? You were never a slave and you will never be African, cause "they" deserve it, jus spelling it how you did as if you were dehuminizing, making people a they instead of what african americans really are.

I am not quite sure how your argument holds water. People took slaves. The government did not. Paying reparations is not only pointless, but it steals money away from actual problems to only give them back to the same people who paid for the money for reparations in the first place! In the end, no one wins. I just so happen to be one of the people who thinks that all things in the past should be left there, so instead of furthering racial equality: minorities are only shooting themselves in the foot requesting or demanding reparations.

Where does it all end? When does the buck stop? The phrase goes "majority rules, minority rights." I am all for minority rights, but special treatment is something I will never support because they are the same (pardon the generalization) hypocrites who call for equality and unity.

I kind of have to ask a question to answer the question- do the jews deserve repartations? Do the jews who did not live through the holocaust deserve a homeland of thier own? Why do we have a different view towards blacks and righting wrongs than we do towards blacks and righting past wrongs? Our genocide of blacks and native americans is much worse than the holocaust against the Jews- yet we spend billions propping up the Isreal state and such, but we begrudge every dime headed towards our own victims of genocide? - we are fighting and have fought very hard as a nation for Jewish reparations- so why the inconsistancy?

1.) Do reparations bring justice to those oppressed? Even if none alive today took part in the slave trade (be it buyer, seller, or slave)?

I don't know if reparations will do any good- but we need to come clean with our genocidal past and recognize it was far, far worse than what hitler did to the jews- and make amends in a such a manner that elevates blacks and native americans in our society to a place that equals white society- perhaps spending the money and resources on inner city and poor areas on education? Take a look at the difference between the an inner city school and a white surbabian school and you see there is some serious lack of reparations there

2.) Should reparations be given? If it was an acceptable practice of the day do we "owe them?"

Once again- if we are going to be consistant as a nation- do we owe any ethnic group that has been the victim of genocide (and ours was one of the very worst, lasting hundreds of years, not a decade or a couple, but generations) anything? If we feel we owe one group, we should be consistant and owe them all, or owe none of them. I feel reparations for any ethnic group where the "victims" are not direct victims, perhaps removed one generation, are do any straight check in the mail reperations- but we should make every effort to elevate them to the same economic status as the oppressors, even it it takes a couple generations- you don't wipe out 4 hundred years of oppression in 25 years- and the civil rights movement has happened in my lifetime- so there are direct victims of our culture of slavery alive today- so, I don't know about reperations- but yes , some kind of special consideration for our past "sins" is definately due. Our society created 99% of the problems , time to face them and fix them in a responsible manner as best as possible.

3.) Are those who call for reparations not the same people who rally behind Affirmative Action, yet call for "equal rights?"

Because if you are born black or native american in this country, due to our legacy of slavery and genocide, and our only very recent strides against it, there are still two americas, white america and everyone else- whether white surbanites care to deal with it or not.

Number one the repartitions are not going to 'Jews'. That is a total fallacy, repartitions are being paid to survivors of the concentration camps. Not their relatives, but to the people that had their property stolen, years of the lives as slaves, families murdered. It is being paid by Germany regardless of religion.

Foreign aid to Israel has nothing to do with this. Nor was Israel established because of the holocaust. It was in the works nearly 20 years before the Nazis got into power.

With that being said, I will answer the questions presented.

1.) Do reparations bring justice to those oppressed? Even if none alive today took part in the slave trade (be it buyer, seller, or slave)? No they don't slavery is just wrong, the repartitions should have been made to allow the former slaves to live and get some of their property back.

2.) Should reparations be given? If it was an acceptable practice of the day do we "owe them?" I agree that we should pay reparations to all survivors. Not their families, but those that had been enslaved in America.

3.) Are those who call for reparations not the same people who rally behind Affirmative Action, yet call for "equal rights?" This I do not know, but to call Affirmation Action and Equal Rights are diametrically opposed. You are either for 'equal rights' or 'affirmation action' not both.

I agree somewhat to your comment. Being a native american i do have my benifets, medical etc. So In my opinion I do think that african americans should be given somthing other than 1 month out of a year. Like you said the inner city schools could use some work.You are correct, we do have direct victims.Some are family some are friends. I understand completely how it is trying to let go of the past , for example i will use my people: Over 4 thousand lives taken during the "Trail Where They Cried" to you known as "The Trail of Tears", beause of gold,land etc. Not to mention the SandCreek masacre over 400 men women and children slayed for no particular reason. The list goes on and on.So when the homeboy said let the past be the past I'm sorry but it's not as easy as one two three. That was our People. Slaves were people not just a history lesson. that was somone's grandmother,grandfather.Not to mention,would there be a need for reperations had the gold and things not been taken. I find it rather odd that african americans and native americans are poverty stricken, maybe because we were stripped of everything land ,gold,most of all rights. I think It would do some good to give back what was already ours. Face the face up dawg, your peoples done the dirt an is it to much to ask to admitt and give a little back? Not right into the hands but put money into something that will benifet african americans as a whole? I see your side to, you have done nothing wrong it was your ancestors. I can see both sides of this topic, i will argue my side. Where"s the empathy?

Wow. CR, this is going to be a good one.

Frankly, reparations have never proven to be effective at changing the past, and "our genocidal past" didn't kill 1.5 Million children, over 5 million Non-Jews, or 1/3 of the world's Jewish population as the holocaust did. We didn't kill millions of anyone. Our class/race based culture was awful to say the least, but is happening in far worse fashion as I type all over the world... is anyone lambasting India for it's class-based culture and calling them genocidal maniacs? Of course not...

The same as Hitler and the Jews?? Come on. That's pure rhetoric and spin for those that know little about either our racist past or the Nazi extermination of political prisoners and jews.

Blacks and Native Americans have a different America? How exactly. I would suppose this is true for blacks in that they reap the benefits of EEOC guidlines, affirmative action benefits, and carte blanche to play the race card? Native Americans have the ability to pursue quasi-legal business ventures such as casinos in non-gambling areas, get tax breaks based upon their native american heritage (even whence far removed), and qualify for large amounts of federal grant money based upon their skin color.

The thing is that every race, gender, age group, and ethnicity comes with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Being a young white man from the south, I've come to understand that racism is a universal trait, true on every corner of the earth that my boots have seen. Blacks, whites, asians, and middle-eastern people have all used stereo-types to portray marginally true aspects of other cultures. Are black people not racist? In a largely black-owned business, does the staff represent the population in reference to demographics?

Want to see reparations, CR? Go to your local Chamber of Commerce, College of Higher learning, Military installation, post office, or large corporation and ask about race-based initiatives (incentives if you will). You can have lower scores on tests and get admitted, perform more poorly as an officer but get promoted, or get a grant or loan for a business with a feeble business plan and/or poor credit. Go to the local "indian" casino and ask for the manager, whom should look "indian", but really is pretty fair skinned... and ask about where he got the money to start the casino. Ask about his children and if he paid for their college education, etc. I can imagine that you'll know the answer prior to his response... reparations. That's what I'd call that...

Well, to be fair, millions of Native Americans and blacks were killed directly or indirectly, due to mistreatment by America and Americans.

Arguing against reparations by minimizing the scale of the crimes committed again Native Americans and blacks is a dead end.

In truth what happened in the US was not one wit worse in nature than the Holocaust.

The Holocaust was so shocking because of the added efficiency of slaughter due to the industrial revolution.

That was the only key difference.

First to comment on some other posts on this thread, I ask "How on earth did the Jews get drug into this?" Every time there's a sensitive topic, Liberals (their tag, not mine) seem to invoke the "What about the Jooos!" argument. It is a non sequitur at best...

Getting on with the original topic...
Do reparations bring justice? In a word, no. Imprisonment or execution of the offenders might, but they are all gone. To try and reduce the treatment of slaves, here or anywhere, past or present, to dollar terms is demeaning. Reparations do bring retribution, but our offended are gone also.
Chris Rock says on stage he's thankful his ancestors were brought here. I realize it's for comedic value, but are not the sacrifices (and I emphasize sacrifice in their honor) of the slaves for the freedom of their progeny similar to the sacrifices of warriors for the freedom of the protected? I would argue that an American of African ancestry has better opportunities here than in Africa. If they didn't think so I believe the airlines would all be booked. Are they all in a better state here?, undoubtedly not, but the opportunity is here. I think Rev. Jackson is living somewhat better than the typical continental African, though I would argue he is doing it at the expense of the masses here he is supposedly standing up for. But we can save that for another day...

Where do you get your figures, as I'm all ears. The holocaust was so shocking because they actually directly killed millions (yes- millions). Slavery killed millions of people too? I'll help you ... nope. Maybe there were instances of slave ships sinking (captained by black africans). It's impossible to quantify, and by no means less than deplorable, but surely can't be compared to the holocaust.

Reparations centers around the "40 acres and a mule" philosophy, and as stated (but not argued), what exactly do you call affirmative action?

How do you classify EEOC guidelines? Gov't loans to minorities? School Grants based upon race?

If you consider the fact that there are thousands of racially-centered programs in the United States, who'd want 40 acres and a mule? Surely not me.

I believe as a caucasian raised in the south, that racism (as stated) is an ugly part of human nature. Prejudice is something that hides in the shadows away from enlightenment, and can only be dealt w/ through understanding. It permeates even the black culture. Growing up in Louisiana, I've come to understand that racism is a word culturally only applied to whites... but surely reality is a far different story.

With that in mind, how would paying a black man in his 30's make up for the deeds of generations past? Where would the money go? Would that erase some of the misdeeds of forefathers? If so, at what point is everything square?

I believe that as long as we perpetuate a cycle of apathy based upon the cruxes of past generations, personal accountability will never become present in those directly affected. What about chinese discrimination? What about share croppers (*my ancestry*)? What about the Irish? Asians? Hispanics?

Where would it end? Teach children to understand that human nature is such that differences are exploited and often misunderstood. As long as our gov't allows a "handout society" bordering on socialist policy to deal with welfare related issues, we'll never get away from the "give a man to fish philosophy". We need to spend more time "teaching men to fish" in order to break these cycles. Would a check make any long-term difference? Of course not... heck no, absolutely not.

Work on those "figures" turnea, I'd like to see something. (please no extreme references or highly left-wing sites)

I'll repeat what my dad taught me, and I think it is a very useful observation.

Whether or not Americans in the past killed fewer, as much, or more people than the Holocaust did, you can't impact it to the Holocaust standard.

When these millions of "savages" were killed, it wasn't killing people then, it was, as the term defined it as, killing something less than human. No one was protecting the rights of the Natives then, and they were basically considered animals.

The Holocaust was condemned by the majority of the world, because then, no one except Hitler and his buds considered Jewish people, minorities, and homosexuals were less than human. Do you see the point?

Modern political correctness can't be applied to 200 years ago. I am not approving of the killings, but it is unrealistic to make a moral decision of the past.

Formerly, it was ok to use the n-word. When we reminisce, we think, "What horrible people would call another person that?" That is only because we are in a modern, PC world. Don't misinterpret this as me saying that racial slurs are ok. But in slavery times, it was basically the term for Africans and African-Americans. Then, it wasn't offensive, just a title.



I know I've answered these before, so I'll put more analogies on them. Yaay.

1/2. Say your dad had his arm broken by Billy the Bully. If Billy the Bully came to you and said sorry, and offered to pay you for the doctor's fees, does this mean anything, realistically? No, of course it doesn't. Or, if someone owed your grandpa $10, and he finally payed you 100 years after, with inflation pushing it, would he have to pay you $1000?

3. This is a very, very annoying question, because it demands for an affirmative action debate.

Affirmative Action was not created because of some theoretical debt to the Black people for past crimes. Affirmative action was created because Blacks were being discriminated against, at THAT TIME, in America and something needed to be done to level the playing field. Don't pretend it was created as some 'ultra-left-wing attempt to right 200 year old southern wrongs, it was created to right an existing, clear and present wrong.

Linking Affirmative action to the argument of slavery reparations is false, and is attempting to link two seperate issues. One issue is one the horrendous mistreatment of blacks 200 years ago, the other is the issue of specific and clear racial bias against blacks in 1960's and later America.


On a matter of Historical fact, yes millions of Native Americans were killed in the colonisation of the Americas. The majority were killed by disease, but an AWFUL lot were killed by human agency. While there is no posible way to measure the number of blacks killed directly or indirectly because of the slave trade, it is not unreasonable to assume this is a pretty high number.

However, again comparing this to the Holocaust is a complete false compairason. The Holocaust killed 6-7 million people in 3.5 years, not in 3 generations. Also, and critically important, id did so in the 20th century, when mankind was supposed to have progressed far beyond this level of barbarity. The fact that following the abolition of slavery, mankind recognised (slowly, to be sure) the equality of all races of man UNDERLINES the horror of the holocaust some 150 years later. The very reality of the change in human culture which gave rise to the abolition of slavery is what makes the holocaust so unique, and makes any other compairason completely unreasonable.



However, with those facts set straight, the issue of 'reparations' for slavery does rase several very interesting questions that need answers before the question can be taken much further:

-Slavery was abolished in the US about 50 years after it was abolished in the British Empire and Europe. I assume since this is a pretty short time, we should also consider reparations for blacks in those nations as well?

-Comparing reparations of blacks to that of jews is unreasonable, as I have explained above. here is a far better comparison. When are we going to pay reparations to Women? Women were treated as property long after Blacks were emancipated. While black slavery is illegal worldwide, in many parts of the world women are still not treated as any better than slaves, and in some, far worse than slaves. Women got the vote and protection under the law, AFTER blacks did. In fact, though the balance has vastrly repaired, women still do not earn as much as men in the workplace.

So please, explain to me an argument for paying reparations to blacks what does not also apply to paying reparations to women.


The reality is there ARE huge race problems in the US today, but to link them directly to the 200 year old institution of lavery is disingenuous. After all, the rest of the western world had black slavery as well, abolished only 50 years earlier, why do they not have the same level of problems? Racism in the us is not the result of 200 year old opinions, it is the result of modern opinions, and it is these modern opinions that need to be adressed and fixed. Bringing up slavery in the context of modern race relations is unhelpful and irrelevant.

It is, of course, nigh unto impossible to get good estimates but as Vermillion backed up even the most cursory understanding of the scale of slavery which involved tens of millions of slaves over it's history and the hundreds of millions of Native Americans whose population was decimated over the years would lead one to the conclusion that the death toll due to American action is easily in the millions.


History of slavery in the United States
What we have to understand that in moral terms, every slave that died in an accident while being "owned" by another man was essentially murdered.

Every slave that died of illness to to squalid conditions and poor food was killed.

My point is that minimizing slavery won't do as an argument against reparations.

I will stand by my estimate that morally it was the equivalent of the Holocaust.

Yes, the Holocaust was more sudden but that was do more to enhanced means than more debased intent.

Still I agree that reparations are impractical.

If Americans would simply come to terms with the nature and scale of our racial history I for one would consider that reparation enough.

No to reparations, period. It's a issue black race pimps use to keep their ignorant followers stirred up.

Further, there is no amount of money that will make any black person want to take advantage of their educational opportunities. It is a question of attitude. If they don't want to learn, they won't. Yet there are some students who do get an education at schools with dropout rates well north of 50%. The only reason some learn while many others don't is their desire to do so.

..and "race pimps" is a term white race baiters used to keep their ignorant followers stirred up.

We could trade blanket insults all day here, but to ignore race as a factor in American life is downright silly.

The affects of hundreds of years of oppression have not been erased in two generations.

Oppose reparations if you like, but denial is not an effective argument.

Turnea, we're not arguing the moral or immoral nature of slavery in contemporary contexts. What you have to understand in reference to the race debate is that slaves were sold by other black people, and over time Western society moved away from the slave trade. All of Western culture utilized slave labor in some fashion or another. Fact. Yes, the nature of the trade is deplorable, but we're talking about whether four-six generations past slavery should receive checks as socialist hand-outs.... so with that in mind;

Ok- to your "figures" and their historical impotence. If there were 10's of millions of slaves and hundreds of millions of Native Americans decimated, where does the information come from? I contend that this is not only inaccurate but absurd to boot. From what I can find, most people believe that at most there were about 850,000 Native Americans within the boundaries of the contiguous states.
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv....m/msg01489.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/n...american#Native Americans in the United States

African slaves were in a completely different boat, in that they were held as an industrial and agricultural tool. In some instances, they made up nearly 1/2 the population, but also sometimes as small as 1/8 (using 1860 as a ref point).
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html

Ok- so that being said, how exactly would we even determine who gets "special treatment" and who doesn't? Who would get checks? Collin Powell seems black... oh, but his parents came from Jamaica. Hmmm...

But back to arguing your point. I'll restate mine (of which no one has yet to argue). America is is smack in the middle of true reparations called affirmative action;
*Affirmative Action is a term used to describe special efforts to recruit and employ groups (minorities and women) who may have been discriminated against in the past. Affirmative action is designed to correct underutilization of qualified women and minorities; it is not designed to prefer them to the exclusion of other groups.

Basically- preferential treatment solely based upon race or gender. That's it. How is that not reparations? How is that not a step towards equality? (well- personally racial division is never a step towards equality...) But it's surely pandering to the minority, isn't it? The military, our gov't, our universities, heck- even the post office gives preferential treatment to someone who has black skin or estrogen. Why? Does it make the mission more successful to have a few women scattered in the mix? Does the mail get delivered faster? Do your kids get better educations because there is more diversity (well, maybe, but aa in higher learning has proven to be detrimental to graduation rates)?

The problem with race debate is historical context and understanding changes every generation. What I mean by that is when generations whom personally experienced something pass, the reality changes based upon passed-on perception. Consider how Germans teach WWII. It's starkely different than our version. As time passes, personal interest and a need-based understanding fill in gaps. This falls on both sides of the fence. Because few of us really even experienced the civil rights movement, and because the idea of latent and free-flowing racism is propogated, we have a whole generation of minorities and caucasians sitting on opposite sides of this issue. Caucasians (well, many of us anyway) were raised in a basically racially-division free culture. In other words, it wasn't really even discussed. Diametrically opposing views often come from blacks falling into Gen X and Y. Would anyone venture to guess why? Is it because they personally have experienced true racism? I'd venture to guess not... but because the idealism has been taught as if an absolute truth.

I would return that your estimate of Native Population is absurdly low.

Less than a million?!

That's just silly, More than a quarter that number were crammed onto the island of Haiti when Columbus got there.

Population overview]
You'll notice 8 million is the low estimate.

Consider still that we are not discussing a shapshot in times bu generations of Native Americans who where killed, infected, and run away from their homes to starve over most of the United States' History.

Why is this important to the reparations debate?

As I have said repeatedly I am not in favor of monetary reparations. It is simply impractical.

..however what need so desperately to be understood is for Americans to stop making excuses for our history.

Americans have killed millions of innocent people over our history, it's a simple fact.

Just because reparations won't help doesn't mean the crime isn't existent.

It doesn't mean Americans are bad people, most major Western nations have killed millions of innocents, it was an acceptable way of doing business for a long time.

..but please don't start selling the numbers short every time the specter of accountability is raised.

1. We're not talking about the Americans or the conquests of the Spanish. We're discussing America and our indiscretions. The link talks about all "Americas" does include Central America, the Carribbean, and S America; in which case non are pertinent to my discussion.

2. As my posts and links discussed, nearly all of the indigenous people that you're discussing were located south of the Rio Grande, and had nothing to do with American history. See previous links and read in detail.

3. It's impractical to choose which points to debate, as my points referencing "affirmative action" and reparations have yet to be addressed.

1.) Do reparations bring justice to those oppressed? Even if none alive today took part in the slave trade (be it buyer, seller, or slave)?

What brings justice is an entirely subjective question. The purpose of reparations is not to bring justice but to ameliorate the harm done by wrong deeds. The payment of repartions to Japanese persons who were unjustly imprisoned during World War II, and whose property was unjustly confiscated, was to ameliorate the harm done by these things.

2.) Should reparations be given? If it was an acceptable practice of the day do we "owe them?"

The coyness of this question is entirely irritating. Who is "we" and who is "them?" Are we supposed to be White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants? If this topic was intended to address proposed payment of reparations to African-American descendants of slaves (which is, of course, essentially all African-Americans), the questioner should have said so.

There is scant doubt that the legacy of slavery persists in the form of low wealth, and low levels of human capital, among many African-Americans. And slavery certainly qualifies as a wrong deed. Therefore, a case can be made for reparations. But I think that simply to confer money on people who happen to have slave ancestry would be a very inefficient means of dealing with this evil. Many persons with slave ancestors have become highly wealthy; why should they be given money? Races do not enjoy welfare; individuals do.

Also, as with affirmative action, this tends to engender racial discord.

It would be better as a matter of social policy to help people because, in all humanity, they need help, and because helping them will promote the common good sufficiently to justify the proposed direct expenditures.

3.) Are those who call for reparations not the same people who rally behind Affirmative Action, yet call for "equal rights?"


"Affirmative action" is not necessarily inconsistent with "equal rights," as implied by the formulation of this question. I am unaware, in any case, that the validity of certain propositions is in any way dependent on whether the people making them are also making given, other propositions.

Personally I am opposed to affirmative action insofar as it would confer favors on people merely because of their ethnicity. It would be better to confer these favors on those genuinely in need of them, regardless of race. That does not mean that there are not many African Americans deserving of the public's helping hand, assistance to whom would be of substantial eventual public benefit.

[Parenthetically, I am deeply in sympathy with the correspondent who suggested here that U.S. support of Israel fundamentally constitutes reparations. I disagree with that formulation as worded, but it is a fact that some sort of collective moral debt to world Jewry is advocated by many who advocate aid to Israel. In the first place, I do not equate Israel with world Jewry; in the second place, I recognize no such debt on the part of the United States. But in any case, it is so dreadfully wearisome always to have that creaky old Holocaust-in-an-Armoire trundled out, and to see its doors thrown open to reveal hideous horrors practiced by one set of doll-like figures upon another -- and in which one's ancestors were supposedly complicit -- all presented with howls, hair-tearing, shirt-rending, and a hand eagerly outstretched for money.]

The feel I get from many of the earlier posts in this thread is that our support of Israel is to be condemned. But instead of seeking to reverse this policy, instead these posters ignore their own condemnation of the practice and instead use it as justification for creating a second, equally condemnable policy: giving reparations in the form of money to black communities or even a black nation.

Others call for more funding for education in predominantly black communities. How much money do we have to dump into education, for any race or community, before we realize that the extra dollars don't translate into extra education. The greater problem in these communities, and others, is that students do not have the desire to make use of the education provided. No amount of money poured into education will make the least bit of difference to a dropout.

I apologize to SuzySteamboat for responding to her comments more than two months after the fact, but I think some of them need to be addressed.

In regards to several examples of alleged discrimation in favor of whites:I'm not sure there is much evidence of this. I work in the mortgage industry and current law is very harsh on any lending institution that discriminates on the basis of race. The standard loan application, which is reviewed by the government, requests information about the applicant's race and ethnicity, among other things, to be used for the purpose of detecting any discrimination. If you know of someone who has been discriminated against, filing a lawsuit is the answer. We cannot make one race love another, but we certainly can and do punish those who act unfairly.

I believe many States and the federal government have enacted legislation that allows a defendant to have a jury made up at least partly of their own race. I can approve of this type of "reparation." Monetary reparations are the wrong medicine here.

Please show evidence of a trend in this matter. I'm sure you can find an individual example, because judges are given some latitude in determining sentences, but is there a trend? I think not.

Possibly if a black post-felon applies for a job for a white employer, they may find themselves discriminated against, in comparison to a white post-felon. However, can you demonstrate that the opposite does not hold true? Can you tell me that racism does not happen on both sides?

If that is the case, what should we propose as a solution? Again, monetary reparations to black communities are not the solution. We already have laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. in employment. The employer would be convicted, certainly, but that is an individual punishment appropriately exacted against an individual crime.

When I apply for a government job, or college admission, and am denied because a female or minority with equal or lesser qualifications beats me out, I tend to feel just the opposite. Whites may have the advantage in some areas, but are now disadvantaged in others. Programs such as Affirmative Action do not improve the situation as I see it. They tend to make those who are unfairly discrimated against (whites in this case) feel resentment towards those who receive a free pass. And it gives those with the free pass the false impression that they are entitled based on their race.

Things are not "potatoes and gravy", and there is much improvement that needs to be done. Racial barriers still need to be broken down, and people's attitudes need to change. The problem is not that the government is racist or discriminatory, but that people are. The government has no power to force racist people to not be racist, despite legislation to the contrary. And when the government gives away one person's money to placate another person, which is pretty much what many attempts at "reparations" are, then the opposite occurs. Those who are taken from are given reason to resent those who are given to. Those who receive, and this is a trend that is growing more prevalent, start to feel entitled to what they receive, and even demand to know why they are not receiving more.

I don't think it unreasonable to demand to know why I, one who has neither owned a slave nor mistreated a minority, should be forced to pay reparations. That is over the top. I don't disagree in the slightest that Blacks and Native Americans were horribly mistreated, both legally and socially. But I take great exception to being held accountable for that mistreatment, even indirectly via taxation, and more directly by reverse discrimination in the name of "justice". Virtually all of those who did the wrong are now dead and beyond our reach.

I can appreciate this line of thought. If an item of property belonged to person A and person C stole it, no matter how many generations have passed, the descendent of A should (I don't know about does) still have legal title to the item, although not the improvements made to it since its theft.

I hesitate to accept the reasoning that African American's and Native American's current poverty is caused solely because they were robbed or oppressed decades or centuries before. Certainly this was a setback, but in forty years or more, even the most poverty-stricken person who has determination and hard work can move up the economic ladder in today's America.

1.) Do reparations bring justice to those oppressed? Even if none alive today took part in the slave trade (be it buyer, seller, or slave)?

Virtually everyone who was oppressed is dead. No amount of reparations on our part will help them. Virtually everyone who did the oppressing is also dead. So, no. Forcing those who did not commit a crime to pay reparations to those who were not victims is not justice.

2.) Should reparations be given? If it was an acceptable practice of the day do we "owe them?"

Allowing all people the rights to which they are entitled to, and acknowledging that terrible wrongs were committed in the past, even condemning those that did the wrong, is about the best we can do. Money will not fix anything, and cannot be justly demanded.

3.) Are those who call for reparations not the same people who rally behind Affirmative Action, yet call for "equal rights?"

I think the intent of Affirmative Action is to secure equal rights for everyone, but unfortunately it tries to do this by overcorrecting, and so does not currently secure equal rights.

1. No. Slavery is such a terrible and inhumane injustice that no amount of money could ever recompense it. There are some things that cannot be bought off.

2. No. Like others have said, where do we draw the line? Do we pay off every group that's ever been wronged? Give back the land the Native Americans held? Write checks to people descended from Irish immigrants who had trouble finding work here? etc. etc. etc.

3. No. A number of Affirmative Action advocates do NOT agree with reparations.

EDITED TO ADD

some much-needed humor to this thread:

Does anybody remember the old "All in the Family" episode where Sammy Davis, Jr. guest starred? He's sitting there in Archie Bunker's living room, and Archie is "explaining" the racial problem to Sammy, to wit:

Archie Bunker: Now, no prejudice intended, but I always check with the Bible on these here things. I think that, I mean if God had meant for us to be together he'd a put us together. But look what he done. He put you over in Africa, and put the rest of us in all the white countries.

Sammy Davis Jr.: Well, he must've told 'em where we were because somebody came and got us.

RIP Carroll O'Connor AND Sammy Davis, Jr.

A few pertinent facts.

The estimate of 100 million Natives, which is a figure upon which a general historical consensus has been reached, is the number of natives in the Americas as a whole, North, central and South. Notably, the largest percentage of these would have been in central America. In terms of natives who lived in what is now the United States, firstly all numbers are at best educated guesses, but even where we do know nbumbers there are complications. The Blackfoot tribes moved back and forth between Canada and the US, were did they 'reside'?

Regardless, the best guess I have seen, and one which has been agreed upon not unanimously but majoritarily is between 2 and 6 million natives living in the United States at their peak. If we are looking at reparations for the US, then this is the group we should be talking about. However, also keep in mind that many of these natives died of European diseases borne by Spanish and French traders and missionarries, long before there was anything resembling an 'America'. We have plenty of accounts of Jesuits and trappers finding abandoned villages, no white person had ever been there, but smallpox had been spread there and wiped them out.

Now none of this alters the reality that, once there was an 'America' of sorts, there were staggering atrocities against Natives, and I think it is fair to say that directly (gunfire and steel) and indirectly (forced relocation and starvation) the United States was responsible for the deaths of tens and even maybe hundreds of thousands of natives. But the millions that died did so at the hands of disease, and those that did die of human agency died at the hands of Europeans.


This is not to mitigate or minimise the burden of guilt that the US bears, just to put it in perspective. There is plenty of guilt to go around.



Actually I did adress it, you just ignored me. Affirmative action was NEVER about redressing some past wrongs or the ills of slavery, it was NEVER about reparations or righting centuries-old wrongs. Affirmative action was an attempt to right a very current problem at the time of its implementation, the bias against blacks in professional and academic life. Affirmative action was plan to help the here and now, not the days gone by. To link Affirmative action to slavery is disingenuous at best.



That is an utter logical leap with no foundation. Your second statement is true, it is a step towards equality, but it has nothing at all to do with reparations or slavery.

If a man is injured on the job by faulty equipment, fixing the equipment is not reparations, it is simply adressing a clear and present problem. Wheither you agree or not with the concept of reparations, and as I said before (and my points were never addressed) I do not, there is NO link to affirmative action.

(*note- I didn't read your previous posts referencing my points...busy days!)

Ok. Follow me on this one please.

If we're giving educations, jobs, grants, homes, and promotions to less qualified individuals, how is that fixing a problem? Who's problem is it? I presume that the University of Michigan proved it well when they showed that affirmative action based admissions actually diminished graduation rates. Affirmative action still hasn't proven to diminish the poverty level, still hasn't put black people in CEO level positions, and hasn't really changed the nature of our society. Who's the emerging middle class? Hispanics!!! Go figure...

Affirmative action in 2005 is nothing but a "reparation" based policy, in that it solves no "societal ills", but singularly panders to a certain portion of the US. However, the definition of reparation (according to www.wordreference.com):
something done or paid in explanation of a wrong

How is that not affirmative action? If we have no accurate or precise information about anything preceeding the civil rights movement, how can 25 years of perpetuating apathy not be reparations?

What else do you suggest? Should we give everyone with dark skin a check? I have a good friend who's 1/2 black and adopted... should she get a check?

I think that if you truly want "reparations", spend time in predominantly minority elementary schools and teach kids the value of an education. Spend time teaching kids the value of a work ethic and help teach a man to fish... for as long as we give the fish out once monthly... nothing will change. Really- what would a check change?

OK, you are all over the place on this one, arguing about four different things. I will try and address them as you brought them up.



OK, to be very clear, we have left the origin of Affirmative action, and you are now arguing the merits of affirmative action, an ENTIRELY different issue. Still, if you want to make this sideline I don't mind, as long as we do not lose the original thread in the process.

If you wish to see the merits of Affirmative action, you need but open your eyes. What was Black participation in University before AA was in place? What is it now?
What was Black participation in white collar jobs before AA? What is it now?
What was black participation in State and Federal Police before AA? What is it now?

A lot of people on this board argue that AA is NO LONGER valuable, and that the need for it has passed. I personally do not agree but at least I can see there being a valid argument there. But you seem to be arguing that there NEVER was any reason for Affirmative action, and thats crazy beyong easy description.

Affirmative Action most certainly has changed the nature of American society. No, it was not a panacea, and did not singlehandedly solve all of the US's race problems, but then again it was never meant to. But to pretend it has done nothing is baffling.

Back to the original issue:




No, no, no. Just because you think something might be construed as reparations does not make it so. Even your own dictionary definition above opposes you. Affirmative action was created to right a wrong all right, but that wrong was the status of Blacks in society in 1965, when they were being excluded from many critical sectors of society, including government, white collar work, University and others. A policy was put in place to attempt to right this wrong.

Affirmative Action NEVER had ANYTHING to do with making reparations for slavery or the slave trade, it NEVER had anything to do with trying to make up for a 200 year old wrong, it was trying to correct a flaw in 1965 American society. There is NO LINK between the two.

In 2001, Germany legalised Gay marriages. Was this action a 'reparation' for the treatment of gays in the holocaust? No of course not, it was a law enacted to try and change what the Germans saw as a social inequality in 2001. Again, no link whatsoever.



Again, you are all over the place. If you read back a bit more carefully, you will find that I have been consistently and uniformly arguing AGAINST the idea of reparations for slavery. Though of course on an entirely different premise than you apparently.

I'm not all over the place, you just disagree Vermillion, and for whatever reason you believe that snide remarks prove your point. On the contrary...

Just because you think something might be construed as reparations does not make it so

I didn't make up the definition. just google it... no surprises.

The definition (as well as many found online) simply states:
something done to right a wrong

In 1965, our culture might have needed something like affirmative action, but in 1995, 2000, or 2005, raced based initiatives are simply enacted or perpetuated to appease a certain portion of American society. How is that not to "right a wrong?" Our culture is spending untold number of resources, generations, lost opportunities, etc to "give something back to generations of people whom weren't robbed of anything.

In my eyes, the perpetuating of Affirmative Action is far better than "40 acres and a mule"...

They've never been proven effective, and are perpetuated out of the pandering and/or guilt associated with our racially based history. It in no context opposses my definition (which by chance I didn't make up).

Again, not at all, as I have demonstrated several times. I am not disagreeing with the dictionary definition of the word 'reparations' as I have made amply clear, just your illogical application of it.

You are right, Affirmative action was enabled in 1967 in order to right a wrong. That wrong was the was the United States was treating blacks in 1967, excluding them from business, management and education to a staggering degree. THAT is the wrong that affirmative action sought to correct.

At NO POINT did anyone enacting these laws do so because 150 years earlier Blacks had been slaves, or do so with the intent of making up for the ills of slavery before the civil war. At NO POINT was Affirmative Action EVER about reparations, apologies, making up for, getting even for or any other dictionary terms you may choose to look up, for slavery. It was done for one reason, because Blacks were being excluded in the workplace and classroom, and something needed to be done to fix it. Agree or not with AA, thats not important. But to pretend that somehow AA was in ANY way a plan of 'reparations' for slavery is utterly counterfactual and simply illogical.

If you continue to insist otherwise, I must ask why? Do you have any evidence the framers were thinking back 150 years when they drafter the legislation? Do you have any tangible reason to believe that AA was NOT a law aimed at US society in 1967 and its failings, but was rather a law aimed at the early 1800s?





Well at least we agree on that.



That doesn't even make any sense. AA has existed since 1967, and in fact it has ben scaled back several times over the last few decades as a result of its sucess so far. It has obviously and clearly had an effect, all you need do is compare stats from 1967 to now and see for yourself. Clearly as it is a continuation of the same 1967 policy, the motive is the same as well. To date nobody has yet come up with a convincing reason to end AA which has appealed to the electorate.

As to, is there STILL a place for AA in 2005? Well, certainly a debatable question, one that has consumed many an AD thread. I still say it has a place and has value, though as I said it is certainly no panacea. That is however a debate best left for elsewhere.

I will ask however the question I ALWAYS ask when people say AA should be eliminated. OK, so what would you replace it with? You cannot possibly be happy with the current state of race relations in the US, probably the worst in the first world. So obviously there is still work to be done. If you get rid of AA, what do you do instead?

Original Poster:

Repamarations

http://www.tightrope.cc/radio/pir_25.ra

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That audio file answers pretty much all your questions, i would post more but this kind of topic has been done to death. We all know its wrong.



Why do black people need ANYTHING do you want special treatment or do you want to be treated as equals please make up your mind and stop dancing from one side to the other when it suits you, thank you.



Yeah and a world of good it ended up doing since 1960 you can tell it helped our schools alot now they have to lower their standard because of this "achievement cap" something needs to be done to fix that now and so far nothing is working any ideas?



So have non-western nations and they still do it to this day.

Nearly 50% of black men in America are jobless.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/dec04/280965.asp


White felons get jobs easier than black men with no criminal record and the same qualifications in America.

http://www.jsonline.com/bym/biz2biz/oct03/175535.asp


America is insanely racist.

Questions for Debate:

1.) Do reparations bring justice to those oppressed? Even if none alive today took part in the slave trade (be it buyer, seller, or slave)?

2.) Should reparations be given? If it was an acceptable practice of the day do we "owe them?"

3.) Are those who call for reparations not the same people who rally behind Affirmative Action, yet call for "equal rights?"

These questions miss the point completely. The slave trade from Africa to North America, South America, and the Carribean Islands was done to increase the profits of tobacco, cotton, and sugar crops. It is the same problem we have today with Wal-Mart, Quik-Trip, K-mart/Sears, Sam's, Nike, Ford, Chevrolet, etc. Cheap labor, higher profits. Reparations are a divisive issue for races to keep our focus off the real criminals, the wealthy ownership class. The arguments are simple and racist. Black women have babies out of wedlock irresponsible and need welfare and they create a drain on the tax money of hard working individuals. Black men are irresponsible and lazy who don't really want to work. Then the counter arguments come, there are more white people on welfare than black people. Black people can't get jobs because the white people that have the power to give them jobs do not and prefer whites. We are arguing whites versus blacks, when we should be arguing rich versus poor.

We should expect the government to protect the weak from the powerful. That's what we should expect, but it's not what we'll get. Today on Fox, Bill Frist, a Republican Representative, was discussing the proposals for the budget. The interviewer put up some number that boiled down to cutting social programs while providing tax breaks on capital gains and investments. At some point, as concerned citizens, we are going to become outraged at such blatant favoritism to the rich and wealthy. Democrats, Republicans, Reparations, Stopping Gays from Marrying, Border control, Patriot Act, and any other useless debatable topic is not going to change the disparity between rich and poor.

1. You can't arbitrarily base this on racism. Availiability, role models, culture, etc. can all contribute to joblessness. I am not asserting this about African-American culture, but if I was raised in a family where getting a job is discouraged, I likely wouldn't get a job.

2. The link doesn't work, and this probably relates to the first. If those felons don't TRY to get a job, then obviously there will be less black felons getting jobs than white felons.

3. That's an ad hominem that is based on the two flaw-riddled assumptions above that argument.

4. That doesn't relate to if African-Americans should get reparations.