BLM Coalition Reveals 6 Point Policy Platform

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reparations for those in the Japanese internment camps paid $20K to each survivor (approx. 100,000).

I'm sure we could agree to pay 20K to each survivor of U.S. slavery.

That would work if we were able to identify the survivors of U.S. slavery, but that is near impossible.

Actually, no it's not. The U.S. Historically has done a great job of record keeping. Some combination of prior census identification plus other proof would be more than enough.

Does anybody really believe the movement would be satisfied if only those blacks who could prove a connection to slavery got money but not other black people?

Reparations is only 1/6 of their platform, so no, I do not think people would be satisfied.

Also, reparations couldn't be just for slavery. No, that wouldn't address the millions of blacks who had wealth literally stolen from them by the government (or allowed by the government to be stolen). Business, and property were outright stolen from AAs all the way through the early 1900s. Also, AAs were specifically excluded from job opportunities and from getting an education. They were experimented on by the government. This was b/c of race. B/c they were black.

If you want to use a cutoff date for reparations, we could start with current and deceased who identified as "black" on the U.S. census in 1965 for obvious reasons, and work our way forward, if necessary.

Also women weren't able to be property owners for a long time. My mom couldn't get a credit card. Native Americans were really screwed over. There are lots of historically disadvantaged people. Maybe we should start a list and then judge each and give value units according to how disadvantaged each was. That seems like it would work well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh god, reparations really? My family wasn't even here during the Civil war, they lived in Europe and didn't emigrate here until WWI or just last generation. So, they never owned slaves and didn't come from a country that even had them. That's just stupid...

but you move to a country that did you moved to a country that interred Japanese people and they were paid reparations do you think you deserve your money back to for that?
And I say this as a person who understands the desire for reparations but don't think it's going to end up being a feasible thing but your argument is asinine .

Interred?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reparations for those in the Japanese internment camps paid $20K to each survivor (approx. 100,000).

I'm sure we could agree to pay 20K to each survivor of U.S. slavery.

That would work if we were able to identify the survivors of U.S. slavery, but that is near impossible.

Actually, no it's not. The U.S. Historically has done a great job of record keeping. Some combination of prior census identification plus other proof would be more than enough.

Does anybody really believe the movement would be satisfied if only those blacks who could prove a connection to slavery got money but not other black people?

Reparations is only 1/6 of their platform, so no, I do not think people would be satisfied.

Also, reparations couldn't be just for slavery. No, that wouldn't address the millions of blacks who had wealth literally stolen from them by the government (or allowed by the government to be stolen). Business, and property were outright stolen from AAs all the way through the early 1900s. Also, AAs were specifically excluded from job opportunities and from getting an education. They were experimented on by the government. This was b/c of race. B/c they were black.

If you want to use a cutoff date for reparations, we could start with current and deceased who identified as "black" on the U.S. census in 1965 for obvious reasons, and work our way forward, if necessary.

Also women weren't able to be property owners for a long time. My mom couldn't get a credit card. Native Americans were really screwed over. There are lots of historically disadvantaged people. Maybe we should start a list and then judge each and give value units according to how disadvantaged each was. That seems like it would work well.

Insurance industry redlining? Mortgage redlining? Higher interest rates on home and auto loans? Restrictive covenants? Discriminatory rental housing practices? Driving while black? Stop snd frisk? You have no clue. It's called White Privilege for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In facing the new American dilemma, the relevant question is not: "What more does the Negro want?" but rather: "How can we make freedom real and substantial for our colored citizens? What just course will ensure the greatest speed and completeness? And how do we combat opposition and overcome obstacles arising from the defaults of the past?"

Certainly the Negro has been deprived. Few people consider the fact that, in addition to being enslaved for two centuries, the Negro was, during all those years, robbed of the wages of his toil. No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries. Not all the wealth of this affluent society could meet the bill. Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law. Such measures would certainly be less expensive than any computation based on two centuries of unpaid wages and accumulated interest.

The moral justification for special measures for Negroes is rooted in the robberies inherent in the institution of slavery.

Martin Luther King, Jr., "What We Can't Wait" (1963, 64), pp. 135, 137, 138.


If this thread proves one thing, it is this: Americans don't subscribe to the philosophies of Martin Luther King, Jr. Never have, never will.

Oppose reparations, oppose Martin Luther King. Refuse to ask what America can do for blacks, refuse to follow the teachings of Martin Luther King.

It's that simple. It's that hard for most of you.

That's a good quote. MLK is certainly a hero and a great man. One of the best our country has ever produced. Have you heard about the Poor People's Campaign? MLK wasn't really big on capitalizing on racial strife.

MLK was viewed as terrorist by the government and most non-black Americans while he lived. The MLK/America love affair didn't start until after he was dead. Go figure.

Define: "racial strife"

A lot of people who were protesting were viewed in that light back then. King was the best of them, but there many others of all types and colors. Have you heard of Daniel Ellsberg? The government didn't like him much either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reparations for those in the Japanese internment camps paid $20K to each survivor (approx. 100,000).

I'm sure we could agree to pay 20K to each survivor of U.S. slavery.

That would work if we were able to identify the survivors of U.S. slavery, but that is near impossible.

Actually, no it's not. The U.S. Historically has done a great job of record keeping. Some combination of prior census identification plus other proof would be more than enough.

Does anybody really believe the movement would be satisfied if only those blacks who could prove a connection to slavery got money but not other black people?

Reparations is only 1/6 of their platform, so no, I do not think people would be satisfied.

Also, reparations couldn't be just for slavery. No, that wouldn't address the millions of blacks who had wealth literally stolen from them by the government (or allowed by the government to be stolen). Business, and property were outright stolen from AAs all the way through the early 1900s. Also, AAs were specifically excluded from job opportunities and from getting an education. They were experimented on by the government. This was b/c of race. B/c they were black.

If you want to use a cutoff date for reparations, we could start with current and deceased who identified as "black" on the U.S. census in 1965 for obvious reasons, and work our way forward, if necessary.

Also women weren't able to be property owners for a long time. My mom couldn't get a credit card. Native Americans were really screwed over. There are lots of historically disadvantaged people. Maybe we should start a list and then judge each and give value units according to how disadvantaged each was. That seems like it would work well.

Insurance industry redlining? Mortgage redlining? Higher interest rates on home and auto loans? Restrictive covenants? Discriminatory rental housing practices? Driving while black? Stop snd frisk? You have no clue. It's called White Privilege for a reason.

Wait. But not all women are white. Native Americans aren't white. Disabled people aren't white. I'm a little confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reparations for those in the Japanese internment camps paid $20K to each survivor (approx. 100,000).

I'm sure we could agree to pay 20K to each survivor of U.S. slavery.

That would work if we were able to identify the survivors of U.S. slavery, but that is near impossible.

Actually, no it's not. The U.S. Historically has done a great job of record keeping. Some combination of prior census identification plus other proof would be more than enough.

Does anybody really believe the movement would be satisfied if only those blacks who could prove a connection to slavery got money but not other black people?

Reparations is only 1/6 of their platform, so no, I do not think people would be satisfied.

Also, reparations couldn't be just for slavery. No, that wouldn't address the millions of blacks who had wealth literally stolen from them by the government (or allowed by the government to be stolen). Business, and property were outright stolen from AAs all the way through the early 1900s. Also, AAs were specifically excluded from job opportunities and from getting an education. They were experimented on by the government. This was b/c of race. B/c they were black.

If you want to use a cutoff date for reparations, we could start with current and deceased who identified as "black" on the U.S. census in 1965 for obvious reasons, and work our way forward, if necessary.

Also women weren't able to be property owners for a long time. My mom couldn't get a credit card. Native Americans were really screwed over. There are lots of historically disadvantaged people. Maybe we should start a list and then judge each and give value units according to how disadvantaged each was. That seems like it would work well.

Lets be clear, the women we are mostly referring to is white women. So lets start there.

Yes, women were screwed over for a time. We still are to an extent (see pay equality). Maybe there is a case for the government to compensate us. One major difference is that most white women (like my mother) were married, and were able to benefit from the advantages and opportunities afforded to their husbands. If the goal is to only deal with things in a certain order, there are many other differences between the struggles of AA and women that would effectively put us near the back of the line as it relates to potential reparations. They are quite obvious, but I could continue to list them if you are curious.

Native Americans are still screwed over. But they have received BILLIONS of dollars and land in reparations. They also receive tax breaks. No amount of money will fix what the U.S. government did to them. And they still face many problems. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have gotten paid though.

Nothing you said diminishes the fact the the U.S. owes a debt to AAs and it has not been paid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In facing the new American dilemma, the relevant question is not: "What more does the Negro want?" but rather: "How can we make freedom real and substantial for our colored citizens? What just course will ensure the greatest speed and completeness? And how do we combat opposition and overcome obstacles arising from the defaults of the past?"

Certainly the Negro has been deprived. Few people consider the fact that, in addition to being enslaved for two centuries, the Negro was, during all those years, robbed of the wages of his toil. No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries. Not all the wealth of this affluent society could meet the bill. Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law. Such measures would certainly be less expensive than any computation based on two centuries of unpaid wages and accumulated interest.

The moral justification for special measures for Negroes is rooted in the robberies inherent in the institution of slavery.

Martin Luther King, Jr., "What We Can't Wait" (1963, 64), pp. 135, 137, 138.


If this thread proves one thing, it is this: Americans don't subscribe to the philosophies of Martin Luther King, Jr. Never have, never will.

Oppose reparations, oppose Martin Luther King. Refuse to ask what America can do for blacks, refuse to follow the teachings of Martin Luther King.

It's that simple. It's that hard for most of you.

That's a good quote. MLK is certainly a hero and a great man. One of the best our country has ever produced. Have you heard about the Poor People's Campaign? MLK wasn't really big on capitalizing on racial strife.

MLK was viewed as terrorist by the government and most non-black Americans while he lived. The MLK/America love affair didn't start until after he was dead. Go figure.

Define: "racial strife"

A lot of people who were protesting were viewed in that light back then. King was the best of them, but there many others of all types and colors. Have you heard of Daniel Ellsberg? The government didn't like him much either.

Racial strife?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reparations for those in the Japanese internment camps paid $20K to each survivor (approx. 100,000).

I'm sure we could agree to pay 20K to each survivor of U.S. slavery.

That would work if we were able to identify the survivors of U.S. slavery, but that is near impossible.

Actually, no it's not. The U.S. Historically has done a great job of record keeping. Some combination of prior census identification plus other proof would be more than enough.

Does anybody really believe the movement would be satisfied if only those blacks who could prove a connection to slavery got money but not other black people?

Reparations is only 1/6 of their platform, so no, I do not think people would be satisfied.

Also, reparations couldn't be just for slavery. No, that wouldn't address the millions of blacks who had wealth literally stolen from them by the government (or allowed by the government to be stolen). Business, and property were outright stolen from AAs all the way through the early 1900s. Also, AAs were specifically excluded from job opportunities and from getting an education. They were experimented on by the government. This was b/c of race. B/c they were black.

If you want to use a cutoff date for reparations, we could start with current and deceased who identified as "black" on the U.S. census in 1965 for obvious reasons, and work our way forward, if necessary.

Also women weren't able to be property owners for a long time. My mom couldn't get a credit card. Native Americans were really screwed over. There are lots of historically disadvantaged people. Maybe we should start a list and then judge each and give value units according to how disadvantaged each was. That seems like it would work well.

Lets be clear, the women we are mostly referring to is white women. So lets start there.

Yes, women were screwed over for a time. We still are to an extent (see pay equality). Maybe there is a case for the government to compensate us. One major difference is that most white women (like my mother) were married, and were able to benefit from the advantages and opportunities afforded to their husbands. If the goal is to only deal with things in a certain order, there are many other differences between the struggles of AA and women that would effectively put us near the back of the line as it relates to potential reparations. They are quite obvious, but I could continue to list them if you are curious.

Native Americans are still screwed over. But they have received BILLIONS of dollars and land in reparations. They also receive tax breaks. No amount of money will fix what the U.S. government did to them. And they still face many problems. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have gotten paid though.

Nothing you said diminishes the fact the the U.S. owes a debt to AAs and it has not been paid.

No. We most certainly won't start there. Who are you even talking about? There have been all kinds of women of all kinds of ethnic and racial backgrounds in the U.S. since forever. I personally know them. My daughter is one. Don't try to erase women just because you're not friends with them or they didn't take the same sociology course. These are real people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. You guys really love you some reparations, huh? Lots of people on here trying to reason away why we (the U.S.) should not owe AAs reparations. Opposition to the debt this country owes AAs is a clear denial of history. AA success in this country has happened DESPITE continued institutionalized racism and oppression.

It's undeniable that the U.S. government owes a moral debt to AAs. Period. I'm White/Asian, and I'm a lifelong conservative. I can easily admit this b/c history makes it very clear. We can disagree or debtate how we payback this debt, and who its specifically owed to, but to ignore it or explain it away with things like "Whites didn't own slaves" or "My family wasn't here, or didn't have slaves, so I shouldn't owe" is really meaningless. Its not about you personally. Its not about whites. Its not even completely about poverty. Its about the U.S. government as an institution and the atrocities it engaged in or allowed, for centuries, on the basis of skin color.

The debt owed to AAs is with the U.S. government. We (tax paying citizens) pay for things we were directly not responsible for all the time. We have paid out billions to Iran, and middle eastern countries to right wrongs. We paid the Native Americans billions and allow tax breaks. We paid Japanese Americans billions, who were relatively new to this country BTW in general. We even paid slave owners reparations after abolishing slavery.

Lets not stop there. We pay when government officials make mistakes or commit atrocities (e.g. police shootings, sexual harassment claims). We pay for policy failures of past federal and local admintrations with our tax dollars. Why all of sudden do we push the brakes when we talk about paying back the very people whose ancestors built this country for free with their blood? Why is THIS one the cardinal sin? This is baffling to me.

For those fixated on "that was in the past we don't owe anyone anything," what about more current atrocities like the effective exclusion of blacks from the GI bill that help rebuild the white middle class, oppressive voting restrictions, housing discrimination, lack of access to credit, watered down affirmative action and civil rights laws, non-enforcement of civil rights laws, racial disparities in sentencing and LE practices. You want to focus on class and ignore race when the issues AAs faced were a direct result of race based policies. You don't think this would have lasting impact on a large % of the targeted group? The shit makes me furious just writing about it, and honestly I still don't understand why AAs as a group support the idea of big government.

You want to talk about poor Whites, or the historical disenfranchisement of Asians? We can brainstorm policies to address that. But it does not diminish the debt the U.S. owes to AAs.

One last thing: Using other countries as an example of how to deal with reparations is weak. We aren't Russia, China or some poor war torn third world country. This is America and we are supposed to be the greatest country in the world. We are supposed to be the lead. WTF would we copy standards from other countries? Or more specifically, since we have already paid reparations numerous times, why would would we only follow their lead when it applies to AAs? Stop it with this.

+1. Great post. So much truth, but most of these folks don't understand or care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. You guys really love you some reparations, huh? Lots of people on here trying to reason away why we (the U.S.) should not owe AAs reparations. Opposition to the debt this country owes AAs is a clear denial of history. AA success in this country has happened DESPITE continued institutionalized racism and oppression.

It's undeniable that the U.S. government owes a moral debt to AAs. Period. I'm White/Asian, and I'm a lifelong conservative. I can easily admit this b/c history makes it very clear. We can disagree or debtate how we payback this debt, and who its specifically owed to, but to ignore it or explain it away with things like "Whites didn't own slaves" or "My family wasn't here, or didn't have slaves, so I shouldn't owe" is really meaningless. Its not about you personally. Its not about whites. Its not even completely about poverty. Its about the U.S. government as an institution and the atrocities it engaged in or allowed, for centuries, on the basis of skin color.

The debt owed to AAs is with the U.S. government. We (tax paying citizens) pay for things we were directly not responsible for all the time. We have paid out billions to Iran, and middle eastern countries to right wrongs. We paid the Native Americans billions and allow tax breaks. We paid Japanese Americans billions, who were relatively new to this country BTW in general. We even paid slave owners reparations after abolishing slavery.

Lets not stop there. We pay when government officials make mistakes or commit atrocities (e.g. police shootings, sexual harassment claims). We pay for policy failures of past federal and local admintrations with our tax dollars. Why all of sudden do we push the brakes when we talk about paying back the very people whose ancestors built this country for free with their blood? Why is THIS one the cardinal sin? This is baffling to me.

For those fixated on "that was in the past we don't owe anyone anything," what about more current atrocities like the effective exclusion of blacks from the GI bill that help rebuild the white middle class, oppressive voting restrictions, housing discrimination, lack of access to credit, watered down affirmative action and civil rights laws, non-enforcement of civil rights laws, racial disparities in sentencing and LE practices. You want to focus on class and ignore race when the issues AAs faced were a direct result of race based policies. You don't think this would have lasting impact on a large % of the targeted group? The shit makes me furious just writing about it, and honestly I still don't understand why AAs as a group support the idea of big government.

You want to talk about poor Whites, or the historical disenfranchisement of Asians? We can brainstorm policies to address that. But it does not diminish the debt the U.S. owes to AAs.

One last thing: Using other countries as an example of how to deal with reparations is weak. We aren't Russia, China or some poor war torn third world country. This is America and we are supposed to be the greatest country in the world. We are supposed to be the lead. WTF would we copy standards from other countries? Or more specifically, since we have already paid reparations numerous times, why would would we only follow their lead when it applies to AAs? Stop it with this.

+1. Great post. So much truth, but most of these folks don't understand or care.

Please, that was a terrible post. We are already paying reparations through state-sponsored discriminatory admissions and hiring processes. I would rather pay a lump sum than deal with BS from unqualified people for the rest of my life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In facing the new American dilemma, the relevant question is not: "What more does the Negro want?" but rather: "How can we make freedom real and substantial for our colored citizens? What just course will ensure the greatest speed and completeness? And how do we combat opposition and overcome obstacles arising from the defaults of the past?"

Certainly the Negro has been deprived. Few people consider the fact that, in addition to being enslaved for two centuries, the Negro was, during all those years, robbed of the wages of his toil. No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries. Not all the wealth of this affluent society could meet the bill. Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law. Such measures would certainly be less expensive than any computation based on two centuries of unpaid wages and accumulated interest.

The moral justification for special measures for Negroes is rooted in the robberies inherent in the institution of slavery.

Martin Luther King, Jr., "What We Can't Wait" (1963, 64), pp. 135, 137, 138.


If this thread proves one thing, it is this: Americans don't subscribe to the philosophies of Martin Luther King, Jr. Never have, never will.

Oppose reparations, oppose Martin Luther King. Refuse to ask what America can do for blacks, refuse to follow the teachings of Martin Luther King.

It's that simple. It's that hard for most of you.

You're quoting about "the moral justification for special measures for Negroes rooted in robberies" from MLK, but remember.....that was in 1963, before civil right rights. And before affirmative action. I think the government HAS made special measures - giving blacks priority in admissions to higher education.....job-hunting advantages due to diversity goals....and a "leg up" when it comes to competing for promotions. It's important to remember that this is done to the sacrifice of whites (or non-blacks in general) and with every college admission, or job hire, or promotion that was done as a result of affirmative action, a deserving and more qualified non-black was not offered a slot in the college, or the job, or the promotion. But don't see any appreciation of or even recognition for these "special measures".

[Anonymous]

I'd like to know Hillary's take on this platform.


This was a huge segment of the DNC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The BLM will lose a lot of sympathy as a result of their preposterous "demands". Up until now, some whites thought BLM had some validity as a movement trying to bring attention to police violence against blacks, but this makes them look like a radical and racist group out for money and special privileges.

+1

After reading this I just rolled my eyes and really can't take it even a little bit seriously.

The reparations demands are just nonsense and could never, ever work.

As a pp said, a platform that actually focused on an achievable goal with a real action plan would have been far better received and would have actually allowed them as an organization to become successful.

[Anonymous]

Going along with the preference given to blacks in admissions in higher education, there are two different scales when it comes to acceptable test scores - and a score that would land a white applicant in the reject pile gets a black applicant a welcome letter. Isn't that a form of reparation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Going along with the preference given to blacks in admissions in higher education, there are two different scales when it comes to acceptable test scores - and a score that would land a white applicant in the reject pile gets a black applicant a welcome letter. Isn't that a form of reparation?

Yes it is.

Here's the problem with meeting demands. It often leads to more demands.