The Maryland Reparations Commission has been enacted into law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are Native Americans always left out of the discussion of reparations? Is slavery that much more serious than genocide?

I'd rather pay Native Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Native Americans always left out of the discussion of reparations? Is slavery that much more serious than genocide?

I'd rather pay Native Americans.

Many tribes did get some form of reparations. You do realize that, right? That's why they signed treaties with the federal government, have sovereignty and raked in cash via casinos for as long as they have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Some Black families can demonstrate seizures of their property by a government entity under eminent domain. Those people are already entitled to reparations if they can prove their case.

Claiming "I was systematically and negatively impacted by government policy" would set a precedent that would open the flood gates for every fringe group.

Henrietta lacks family proved it and the poor billionaires had to pay them a few measly millions.

Does this decision mean all Blacks deserve reparations because of one specific transgression?

"One specific transgresson"?

That's how you would describe slavery that happened to an entire population of people who were kidnapped, brought here against their will, physically, emotionally and sexually abused and entered into forced labor with no compensation? That whole sytem that endured for over 200 hundred years?

That is not a "specific transgression."

Stay on topic. You brought up the Lacks case. It was resolved. It has no bearing on slavery prior to 1865.

Again, neither the federal government nor Maryland government held slaves. There's no legal reason for those governments to pay reparations to descendants of enslaved peoples. Reparations, if any, are owed by the private citizens and institutions that enslaved people. I believe most public institutions that held slaves have already made reparations.

I wasn't the poster who brought up the lacks case. I assumed the specific transgression you were referring to was slavery, hence my response.

But even if you were talking about Henrietta Lacks, she is far from the only Black person in U.S. history who was experimented on without her consent. So even that example fails the test of the "specific transgression" comment you made. See the Tuskeegee syphillis study on Black men: https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/about/index.html

Black people's bodies have been used for labor and science by the U.S. government without their consent for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Please start off your logic recognizing that the harms didn't end when slavery ended. There was another century's worth of government actions meant to sideline Black Americans. At best. And to deliberately impoverish them at worst.

Love how the racist trash keep ignoring this.

I'm not seeing anything demonstrating enduring harm. That some people are poor in the present day has no logical or factual relationship to what happened to other people in bygone times, unless a chain of causation is shown, which it never has been and cannot be. Funny how successful minorities today are ignored in this discussion, as their inconvenient success undermines the proposition that the impacts of old wrongs are what hold back people today - the existence of plenty of successful minorities definitively puts the lie to that.

I also smell racism in the absence of reparation arguments in favor of present-day poor white people. Surely their failure to thrive financially is equally attributable to long ago discrimination based on social class if not skin color?

Are you kidding me? So because a HANDFUL of Black people are successful (probably less than 2% of Black households), that negates the fact that the overwhelming majority of Black people in this country are disadvantaged compared to their white counterparts?

Did EVERY woman have to experience sexual harassment for us to recognize that gender-based harassment was a thing and that we needed to enact laws to protect women from this unacceptable behavior and to punish those found guilty of sexual harassment with monetary consequences to deter the behavior?

Of course the answer to that question is no, and you know this. You just don't care about uplifting and improving the circumstances of Black people, who you believe deserve to be destitute because they are Black.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Some Black families can demonstrate seizures of their property by a government entity under eminent domain. Those people are already entitled to reparations if they can prove their case.

Claiming "I was systematically and negatively impacted by government policy" would set a precedent that would open the flood gates for every fringe group.

Henrietta lacks family proved it and the poor billionaires had to pay them a few measly millions.

Does this decision mean all Blacks deserve reparations because of one specific transgression?

"One specific transgresson"?

That's how you would describe slavery that happened to an entire population of people who were kidnapped, brought here against their will, physically, emotionally and sexually abused and entered into forced labor with no compensation? That whole sytem that endured for over 200 hundred years?

That is not a "specific transgression."

Stay on topic. You brought up the Lacks case. It was resolved. It has no bearing on slavery prior to 1865.

Again, neither the federal government nor Maryland government held slaves. There's no legal reason for those governments to pay reparations to descendants of enslaved peoples. Reparations, if any, are owed by the private citizens and institutions that enslaved people. I believe most public institutions that held slaves have already made reparations.

I wasn't the poster who brought up the lacks case. I assumed the specific transgression you were referring to was slavery, hence my response.

But even if you were talking about Henrietta Lacks, she is far from the only Black person in U.S. history who was experimented on without her consent. So even that example fails the test of the "specific transgression" comment you made. See the Tuskeegee syphillis study on Black men: https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/about/index.html

Black people's bodies have been used for labor and science by the U.S. government without their consent for years.

And those specific people and their families are due compensation. Those actions are not the basis for reparations for a general group of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Some Black families can demonstrate seizures of their property by a government entity under eminent domain. Those people are already entitled to reparations if they can prove their case.

Claiming "I was systematically and negatively impacted by government policy" would set a precedent that would open the flood gates for every fringe group.

Henrietta lacks family proved it and the poor billionaires had to pay them a few measly millions.

Does this decision mean all Blacks deserve reparations because of one specific transgression?

"One specific transgresson"?

That's how you would describe slavery that happened to an entire population of people who were kidnapped, brought here against their will, physically, emotionally and sexually abused and entered into forced labor with no compensation? That whole sytem that endured for over 200 hundred years?

That is not a "specific transgression."

Stay on topic. You brought up the Lacks case. It was resolved. It has no bearing on slavery prior to 1865.

Again, neither the federal government nor Maryland government held slaves. There's no legal reason for those governments to pay reparations to descendants of enslaved peoples. Reparations, if any, are owed by the private citizens and institutions that enslaved people. I believe most public institutions that held slaves have already made reparations.

I wasn't the poster who brought up the lacks case. I assumed the specific transgression you were referring to was slavery, hence my response.

But even if you were talking about Henrietta Lacks, she is far from the only Black person in U.S. history who was experimented on without her consent. So even that example fails the test of the "specific transgression" comment you made. See the Tuskeegee syphillis study on Black men: https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/about/index.html

Black people's bodies have been used for labor and science by the U.S. government without their consent for years.

And those specific people and their families are due compensation. Those actions are not the basis for reparations for a general group of people.

It is clear you have not been exposed to or studies systemic and structural racism in any way. You assume racism is a problem of individuals. That is not the case. Racism and discrimination were conceived, coordinated, tolerated and spread through systems and structures of government and society. Black people asking for reparations from those same systems and structures is absolutely valid, and again, other racial and ethnic groups have received similar reparations in the past and present. Even worse, there are plenty examples of enslaved people paying reparations to their enslavers for their freedom or for the economic harm caused by the loss of their free forced labor.

For example: If Haiti had to pay France back because it's slaveholder citizens demanded reparations: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/10/05/1042518732/-the-greatest-heist-in-history-how-haiti-was-forced-to-pay-reparations-for-freed

I think descendants of enslaved people have the right to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Native Americans always left out of the discussion of reparations? Is slavery that much more serious than genocide?

I'd rather pay Native Americans.

Many tribes did get some form of reparations. You do realize that, right? That's why they signed treaties with the federal government, have sovereignty and raked in cash via casinos for as long as they have.

Not nearly enough. I think govt has been much more generous to AAs than NAs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

True. Yet another expensive Maryland social program that taxpayers will pay for . . . and why we are all fleeing to Virginia.

Oh please don’t. N.VA is already basically Montgomery County, politically. The problem is you bring your liberal ideas with you, and then complain when institutions are ruined.

Stay in MD and pay your reparations, it’s what you voted for via your State Reps. It’s probably just going to be an add-on to your income and/or property tax, you won’t even notice after a year or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

True. Yet another expensive Maryland social program that taxpayers will pay for . . . and why we are all fleeing to Virginia.

Oh please don’t. N.VA is already basically Montgomery County, politically. The problem is you bring your liberal ideas with you, and then complain when institutions are ruined.

Stay in MD and pay your reparations, it’s what you voted for via your State Reps. It’s probably just going to be an add-on to your income and/or property tax, you won’t even notice after a year or so.

Not doing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Some Black families can demonstrate seizures of their property by a government entity under eminent domain. Those people are already entitled to reparations if they can prove their case.

Claiming "I was systematically and negatively impacted by government policy" would set a precedent that would open the flood gates for every fringe group.

Henrietta lacks family proved it and the poor billionaires had to pay them a few measly millions.

Does this decision mean all Blacks deserve reparations because of one specific transgression?

"One specific transgresson"?

That's how you would describe slavery that happened to an entire population of people who were kidnapped, brought here against their will, physically, emotionally and sexually abused and entered into forced labor with no compensation? That whole sytem that endured for over 200 hundred years?

That is not a "specific transgression."

Stay on topic. You brought up the Lacks case. It was resolved. It has no bearing on slavery prior to 1865.

Again, neither the federal government nor Maryland government held slaves. There's no legal reason for those governments to pay reparations to descendants of enslaved peoples. Reparations, if any, are owed by the private citizens and institutions that enslaved people. I believe most public institutions that held slaves have already made reparations.

OK, how about the William Dove case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Some Black families can demonstrate seizures of their property by a government entity under eminent domain. Those people are already entitled to reparations if they can prove their case.

Claiming "I was systematically and negatively impacted by government policy" would set a precedent that would open the flood gates for every fringe group.

Henrietta lacks family proved it and the poor billionaires had to pay them a few measly millions.

Does this decision mean all Blacks deserve reparations because of one specific transgression?

"One specific transgresson"?

That's how you would describe slavery that happened to an entire population of people who were kidnapped, brought here against their will, physically, emotionally and sexually abused and entered into forced labor with no compensation? That whole sytem that endured for over 200 hundred years?

That is not a "specific transgression."

Stay on topic. You brought up the Lacks case. It was resolved. It has no bearing on slavery prior to 1865.

Again, neither the federal government nor Maryland government held slaves. There's no legal reason for those governments to pay reparations to descendants of enslaved peoples. Reparations, if any, are owed by the private citizens and institutions that enslaved people. I believe most public institutions that held slaves have already made reparations.

OK, how about the William Dove case?

Don't poison your wife?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Some Black families can demonstrate seizures of their property by a government entity under eminent domain. Those people are already entitled to reparations if they can prove their case.

Claiming "I was systematically and negatively impacted by government policy" would set a precedent that would open the flood gates for every fringe group.

Henrietta lacks family proved it and the poor billionaires had to pay them a few measly millions.

Does this decision mean all Blacks deserve reparations because of one specific transgression?

"One specific transgresson"?

That's how you would describe slavery that happened to an entire population of people who were kidnapped, brought here against their will, physically, emotionally and sexually abused and entered into forced labor with no compensation? That whole sytem that endured for over 200 hundred years?

That is not a "specific transgression."

Stay on topic. You brought up the Lacks case. It was resolved. It has no bearing on slavery prior to 1865.

Again, neither the federal government nor Maryland government held slaves. There's no legal reason for those governments to pay reparations to descendants of enslaved peoples. Reparations, if any, are owed by the private citizens and institutions that enslaved people. I believe most public institutions that held slaves have already made reparations.

I wasn't the poster who brought up the lacks case. I assumed the specific transgression you were referring to was slavery, hence my response.

But even if you were talking about Henrietta Lacks, she is far from the only Black person in U.S. history who was experimented on without her consent. So even that example fails the test of the "specific transgression" comment you made. See the Tuskeegee syphillis study on Black men: https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/about/index.html

Black people's bodies have been used for labor and science by the U.S. government without their consent for years.

And those specific people and their families are due compensation. Those actions are not the basis for reparations for a general group of people.

It is clear you have not been exposed to or studies systemic and structural racism in any way. You assume racism is a problem of individuals. That is not the case. Racism and discrimination were conceived, coordinated, tolerated and spread through systems and structures of government and society. Black people asking for reparations from those same systems and structures is absolutely valid, and again, other racial and ethnic groups have received similar reparations in the past and present. Even worse, there are plenty examples of enslaved people paying reparations to their enslavers for their freedom or for the economic harm caused by the loss of their free forced labor.

For example: If Haiti had to pay France back because it's slaveholder citizens demanded reparations: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/10/05/1042518732/-the-greatest-heist-in-history-how-haiti-was-forced-to-pay-reparations-for-freed

I think descendants of enslaved people have the right to do the same.

Did the US government force Black citizens to pay for their freedom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Some Black families can demonstrate seizures of their property by a government entity under eminent domain. Those people are already entitled to reparations if they can prove their case.

Claiming "I was systematically and negatively impacted by government policy" would set a precedent that would open the flood gates for every fringe group.

Henrietta lacks family proved it and the poor billionaires had to pay them a few measly millions.

Does this decision mean all Blacks deserve reparations because of one specific transgression?

"One specific transgresson"?

That's how you would describe slavery that happened to an entire population of people who were kidnapped, brought here against their will, physically, emotionally and sexually abused and entered into forced labor with no compensation? That whole sytem that endured for over 200 hundred years?

That is not a "specific transgression."

Stay on topic. You brought up the Lacks case. It was resolved. It has no bearing on slavery prior to 1865.

Again, neither the federal government nor Maryland government held slaves. There's no legal reason for those governments to pay reparations to descendants of enslaved peoples. Reparations, if any, are owed by the private citizens and institutions that enslaved people. I believe most public institutions that held slaves have already made reparations.

I wasn't the poster who brought up the lacks case. I assumed the specific transgression you were referring to was slavery, hence my response.

But even if you were talking about Henrietta Lacks, she is far from the only Black person in U.S. history who was experimented on without her consent. So even that example fails the test of the "specific transgression" comment you made. See the Tuskeegee syphillis study on Black men: https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/about/index.html

Black people's bodies have been used for labor and science by the U.S. government without their consent for years.

And those specific people and their families are due compensation. Those actions are not the basis for reparations for a general group of people.

It is clear you have not been exposed to or studies systemic and structural racism in any way. You assume racism is a problem of individuals. That is not the case. Racism and discrimination were conceived, coordinated, tolerated and spread through systems and structures of government and society. Black people asking for reparations from those same systems and structures is absolutely valid, and again, other racial and ethnic groups have received similar reparations in the past and present. Even worse, there are plenty examples of enslaved people paying reparations to their enslavers for their freedom or for the economic harm caused by the loss of their free forced labor.

For example: If Haiti had to pay France back because it's slaveholder citizens demanded reparations: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/10/05/1042518732/-the-greatest-heist-in-history-how-haiti-was-forced-to-pay-reparations-for-freed

I think descendants of enslaved people have the right to do the same.

Did the US government force Black citizens to pay for their freedom?

The most famous instance of the government paying for freedom occurred in Washington, D.C. in 1862.

The D.C. Emancipation Act: President Lincoln signed a law that freed roughly 3,000 enslaved people in the District. However, the government did not give money to the newly freed people; instead, it paid the loyal enslavers up to $300 for every person they "released."

The Result: The federal government essentially used taxpayer money to reimburse enslavers for the loss of their "property." The freed Black citizens received no financial assistance or "start-up" capital to begin their lives as free people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Some Black families can demonstrate seizures of their property by a government entity under eminent domain. Those people are already entitled to reparations if they can prove their case.

Claiming "I was systematically and negatively impacted by government policy" would set a precedent that would open the flood gates for every fringe group.

Henrietta lacks family proved it and the poor billionaires had to pay them a few measly millions.

Does this decision mean all Blacks deserve reparations because of one specific transgression?

"One specific transgresson"?

That's how you would describe slavery that happened to an entire population of people who were kidnapped, brought here against their will, physically, emotionally and sexually abused and entered into forced labor with no compensation? That whole sytem that endured for over 200 hundred years?

That is not a "specific transgression."

Stay on topic. You brought up the Lacks case. It was resolved. It has no bearing on slavery prior to 1865.

Again, neither the federal government nor Maryland government held slaves. There's no legal reason for those governments to pay reparations to descendants of enslaved peoples. Reparations, if any, are owed by the private citizens and institutions that enslaved people. I believe most public institutions that held slaves have already made reparations.

I wasn't the poster who brought up the lacks case. I assumed the specific transgression you were referring to was slavery, hence my response.

But even if you were talking about Henrietta Lacks, she is far from the only Black person in U.S. history who was experimented on without her consent. So even that example fails the test of the "specific transgression" comment you made. See the Tuskeegee syphillis study on Black men: https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/about/index.html

Black people's bodies have been used for labor and science by the U.S. government without their consent for years.

And those specific people and their families are due compensation. Those actions are not the basis for reparations for a general group of people.

It is clear you have not been exposed to or studies systemic and structural racism in any way. You assume racism is a problem of individuals. That is not the case. Racism and discrimination were conceived, coordinated, tolerated and spread through systems and structures of government and society. Black people asking for reparations from those same systems and structures is absolutely valid, and again, other racial and ethnic groups have received similar reparations in the past and present. Even worse, there are plenty examples of enslaved people paying reparations to their enslavers for their freedom or for the economic harm caused by the loss of their free forced labor.

For example: If Haiti had to pay France back because it's slaveholder citizens demanded reparations: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/10/05/1042518732/-the-greatest-heist-in-history-how-haiti-was-forced-to-pay-reparations-for-freed

I think descendants of enslaved people have the right to do the same.

Did the US government force Black citizens to pay for their freedom?

In some states, even when an enslaver wanted to free a person (manumission), the government made it expensive and difficult.

Bonds and Taxes: Some states required the enslaver to post a heavy financial bond with the government to ensure the freed person wouldn't become a "public charge."

The "Exit" Requirement: By the mid-1800s, many Southern states (like Virginia) passed laws requiring newly freed Black people to leave the state within a year or face re-enslavement. This forced people to pay for travel and relocation, often separating them from their families who remained enslaved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Some Black families can demonstrate seizures of their property by a government entity under eminent domain. Those people are already entitled to reparations if they can prove their case.

Claiming "I was systematically and negatively impacted by government policy" would set a precedent that would open the flood gates for every fringe group.

Henrietta lacks family proved it and the poor billionaires had to pay them a few measly millions.

Does this decision mean all Blacks deserve reparations because of one specific transgression?

"One specific transgresson"?

That's how you would describe slavery that happened to an entire population of people who were kidnapped, brought here against their will, physically, emotionally and sexually abused and entered into forced labor with no compensation? That whole sytem that endured for over 200 hundred years?

That is not a "specific transgression."

Stay on topic. You brought up the Lacks case. It was resolved. It has no bearing on slavery prior to 1865.

Again, neither the federal government nor Maryland government held slaves. There's no legal reason for those governments to pay reparations to descendants of enslaved peoples. Reparations, if any, are owed by the private citizens and institutions that enslaved people. I believe most public institutions that held slaves have already made reparations.

OK, how about the William Dove case?

Don't poison your wife?

No the Maryland William Dove not the England William Dove