Amazing article in the Atlantic. I would hope that people could read it and grapple with the topics raised without simply reacting in a knee-jerk manner.

http://www.theatlantic.co...ns/361631/

there is no case. they got freedom....oh yeah there was that little thing called the civil war...No one should receive a dime 150 years afterward....one of the stupidest articles ever linked here...but then again...consider the source.

So, if I systematically steal from you, there should be no redress once I... stop?

I don't think you actually read the article. I suppose I could make a some sort of reply about not being surprised, considering the source.

Then again, I doubt anyone's mother ever signed 'ungyded' to either a certificate of live birth OR a long form birth certificate, so I'll take the high road and ignore the fecklessness of an anonymous coward.

Would anyone who actually read the article care to make a reasoned argument against the claims raised within?

I agree with Bridgier 100%>

Interesting read.

ungyded wrote:

there is no case. they got freedom.

And that is where I stopped reading your ignorant racist post.

Good Article. One could hope that there would be a follow up one dealing with the American Indian.

hmmm.....a name like "bridgier" ?

Well, good luck. I guess your too stupid to even know how to spell Bridger.

[This message has been edited by ungyded (5/28/2014)]

Well, that's my parents problem, not mine.

Good point Ike. I thought the same when I read the article. One step at time, I suppose.

I think there have been some attempts to provide some sort of compensation to native americans over the years, although every step forward is met with several steps back - the reservation system, for example, was quickly undermined by the Dawes Act, the BIA can't decide if it's supposed to be maintaining trust monies, or burying them in 55 gallon drums in unmarked locations, etc, etc.

Of course, as 'ungyded' would be happy to point out, they signed their treaties, so procreate them.

Although the article in the Atlantic did speak to “reparations” – I think the core of it when it comes to African-Americans and Native Americans is “recognition”. The two questions that always come to mind when I think of, and discuss, these issues are:
1). Whose slave labor / Jim Crow labor played a major role in “growing” this country for several centuries?
2). Whose land was this country built upon?

In the long-run, monetary tokens might not be as important as recognizing that questions such as these have merit and likely should be answered.

please; what is the title of the article and where can I read it thanks

oops I just now saw the link where I can read it duh!!!!

You know, I agree. Something should be done.

Spain, Portugal, Great Britain, the Dutch, the Arabs and most West African Nations bear 100% liability for institutional slavery in the Americas. If there is any case to be made for "reparations" for black African and Indian slavery, it has to include ALL relevant parties. Settle it in the Hague International Criminal Court. Let them all contribute their "fair share." I'm $17.5 trillion in debt and I don't have another dime to give.

Besides, I'm Irish-American. Nobody in my lineage, back to the Bell Beaker People, ever owned a slave. Considering the long history of Irish oppression and subjugation, we will plan to be present as "plaintiffs".....

Good point, Oddjob.

Seems are national debt is about 27,000 per. Let's just all pay up. call it even, and start all over.

The layers of this issue are really complex. On one hand, it takes a person with an above average social intelligence to realize and agree with a lot of the points made in that article. The downside is that same level of intelligence leads a person to realize that this country is far too big to ever get a majority consensus that would support even 1/10th of the required changes needed to fix the situation.

So you're left with 2 viable options:

1) Continue to beat the drum and hope that maybe something can be done. (ensuring a platform and cause others can manipulate to wedge social issues)

2) Move on (and in doing so, become part of the problem)

I really don't think we have the capacity to fix the issue at this point. I also don't think anyone is remotely smart enough to accurately predict what issues will arise from this in 50, 75 or 100 years.

All we can do is react.

[This message has been edited by J. Dyba (5/29/2014)]

What We Talk About When We Talk About Reparations
by Jelani Cobb
THE NEW YORKER
May 30, 2014
http://www.newyorker.com/...picks=true

Jesus that comments section is horrible.

" If Thou should mark iniquity, oh Lord, who shall stand?"

The Case against Reparations: A reply to Ta-Nehisi Coates
By Kevin D. Williamson
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
May 24, 2014
http://www.nationalreview...williamson


The Case for American History: A reply to National Review's Kevin D. Williamson
By Ta-Nehisi Coates
THE ATLANTIC
June 2, 2014
http://www.theatlantic.co...ry/371723/




Why Your Race Isn’t Genetic
By Michael White
PACIFIC STANDARD
May 30, 2014
http://www.psmag.com/navi...tic-82475/




3000-Year-Old Trousers Were Cut Like Justin Bieber's
By Colin Barras
NEW SCIENTIST
June 2, 2014
http://www.newscientist.c...40RovldXTo

Goddamnit Hal, I made an exception to my "It'll be a cold day in hell before I read a confabulation from the liars and grifters at The National Review" policy JUST FOR YOU, and I was right, it WAS a mess of logical fallacies and bad faith arguments, just like I knew it would be.

From TNC's rebuttal:

And racist policy is at the heart of our beloved country. Ignoring this leaves us intellectually poor, and finds us devolving into bizarre thought experiments:

Imagine, for example, that rather than having been brought to the colonies as slaves, the first Africans to arrive in the New World had come as penniless immigrants in 1900.

Williamson then posits that black people would still be poor because they'd be far behind the native white population. Williamson never considers that the two groups might intermarry—because he believes in "race," which is to say creationism. For that same reason he ignores the fact there was no "New World" with "native whites" to come to without the labor of African-Americans. Europeans did not purchase enslaved Africans because they disliked the cut of their jib. They did it because they had taken a great deal of land and needed bonded labor to extract resources from it. Africans—aliens to society, existing beyond the protections of the crown—fit the bill.

The bolded portion is the heart of the matter.

"I think I busted a button on me trousers, I hope they don't fall down.

You don't want my trousers falling down now, now do ya?"

Just hang on to your britches Bridgier – don’t go Bieberin’ off on it ; -)