Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish this would pass. Descendants of American chattel slavery deserve all the blessings and more. It’s time.

Even the white ones?

Yes. Justifying slavery with “white people experienced it too” is so ridiculous. Slavery should not have occurred and people need to get over everything being a white person issue.

My point was that many "Descendants of American chattel slavery" are white. Do they deserve priority admission?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would someone prove eligibility?

Robust genealogy research? Three of my ancestors were slaves - depending on how open the owner was about sleeping with his slaves, it's pretty easy to prove.

What's the percentage that will qualify? I'm 1% Nigerian according to 23 and Me, and FamilySearch says that 1% is from an ancestor who lived in the early 1800s. I'm white and my family is white as far as anyone could tell to look at. Would I qualify? Would my kids? Would my grandkids? Are we going to go with a blood quantum?

Having that percentage does not mean you were descended from a slave in the U.S.

You can trace slave heritage. There are many people who research this.

I saw a lecture by a Black genealogist. She said at some point, researchers will land in Virginia. Many people lived there.

The majority of the people in that audience were Black. This was in California. I'm sure many or most of them were descendants of slaves.

What about the country's discrimination against others:

Japanese Americans
Jews
the Chinese
The LGBTQIA
Hispanics
Muslims

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish this would pass. Descendants of American chattel slavery deserve all the blessings and more. It’s time.

Even the white ones?

Yes. Justifying slavery with “white people experienced it too” is so ridiculous. Slavery should not have occurred and people need to get over everything being a white person issue.

It could pass. CA gives free tuition to Native Americans as of a few years ago. I could see support for this, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also the descendants of slaves may have come mainly from the Southern states and DMV but may have long been living in California.

why am I even explaining this?

You shouldn’t even have to explain. People act obtuse while at the same time have nothing to say regarding legacy admissions.

California banned legacy admissions.

Just suppose… that every single African American high school senior in California claimed to be a descendent of slaves and then had “priority” (which doesn’t mean guaranteed admission) in their application. African Americans are 6% of California’s population.
About 28% of African Americans over age 25 have a four year degree. So let’s say this giant prioritizing increases that to 50% (unlikely anytime soon) in the next generation. That means a whopping 3% of students in the Cal state systems might be African American. If they are able to remain for four years( hard with economic challenges and some will come from poorer high schools).
Mercy!
Tiny price for reparations. Probably would turn out to do a lot of good… social and economic. If it passes, it will have far less effect on the people fearing this than they think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would someone prove eligibility?

Robust genealogy research? Three of my ancestors were slaves - depending on how open the owner was about sleeping with his slaves, it's pretty easy to prove.

What's the percentage that will qualify? I'm 1% Nigerian according to 23 and Me, and FamilySearch says that 1% is from an ancestor who lived in the early 1800s. I'm white and my family is white as far as anyone could tell to look at. Would I qualify? Would my kids? Would my grandkids? Are we going to go with a blood quantum?

Anonymous wrote:I wish this would pass. Descendants of American chattel slavery deserve all the blessings and more. It’s time.

Even the white ones?

Anonymous wrote:Also the descendants of slaves may have come mainly from the Southern states and DMV but may have long been living in California.

why am I even explaining this?

You shouldn’t even have to explain. People act obtuse while at the same time have nothing to say regarding legacy admissions.

CA currently guarantees admission to the UCs to those in the top 9% of the graduating class, but that guarantee just means into a UC, not necessarily the UC of their choice; so basically they are guaranteeing UC Merced or UC Riverside. Anyway, wonder if this bill would just mean priority to attend somewhere in the UC/Cal state system (so again UC Merced, UC Riverside, CSU Fresno, CSU Stanislaus, etc), or priority within the applicant pool of each school.

Also the descendants of slaves may have come mainly from the Southern states and DMV but may have long been living in California.

why am I even explaining this?

I wish this would pass. Descendants of American chattel slavery deserve all the blessings and more. It’s time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would someone prove eligibility?

Robust genealogy research? Three of my ancestors were slaves - depending on how open the owner was about sleeping with his slaves, it's pretty easy to prove.

First, I’m sorry your family experienced slavery. I do believe in generational trauma and the reverberation through the years.

I hope a follow up question isn’t insensitive. But, assuming bad records by the plantation, how would one prove this? It just seems like only a tiny sliver of impacted descendants could actually prove this history makes the bill unworkable.

Why would you assume trauma? Its just an interesting family history is all - and proves this bill is moronic, since I'm white.

?? It is a generational trauma for a majority of generational black American families.

Sure, and the reason I can't intimately understand it is because my half-white ancestor (the product of rape, in case that wasn't obvious) didn't wallow in his trauma. Others could learn from his determination.

Did you read his diary? How do you know this? I have a lot of genealogical information on my ancestors from the 19th century, but I have very little idea of what any thought about their day-to-day lives because I've never read their diaries, letters, or anything else first-hand. They could have been saints or they could have been sinners, I have no clue.

Just because someone lived to old age, had a successful career, raised a family, etc. does not mean they didn't "wallow in trauma"--ask anyone who is the child of an alcoholic WWII or Vietnam vet, for example.

We know he took of advantage of his ability to pass, ran multiple businesses, married, and had children. Trauma may have affected, but that's not wallowing by any definition.

Okay, so he lived as a white man, married a white woman, had white children, and you think you know how he experienced that alienation from his heritage? He may have been economically successful, but that tells us nothing about his trauma.

I think there's no generational trauma, no. Which was the original assumption I took issue with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would someone prove eligibility?

Robust genealogy research? Three of my ancestors were slaves - depending on how open the owner was about sleeping with his slaves, it's pretty easy to prove.

First, I’m sorry your family experienced slavery. I do believe in generational trauma and the reverberation through the years.

I hope a follow up question isn’t insensitive. But, assuming bad records by the plantation, how would one prove this? It just seems like only a tiny sliver of impacted descendants could actually prove this history makes the bill unworkable.

Why would you assume trauma? Its just an interesting family history is all - and proves this bill is moronic, since I'm white.

?? It is a generational trauma for a majority of generational black American families.

Sure, and the reason I can't intimately understand it is because my half-white ancestor (the product of rape, in case that wasn't obvious) didn't wallow in his trauma. Others could learn from his determination.

Did you read his diary? How do you know this? I have a lot of genealogical information on my ancestors from the 19th century, but I have very little idea of what any thought about their day-to-day lives because I've never read their diaries, letters, or anything else first-hand. They could have been saints or they could have been sinners, I have no clue.

Just because someone lived to old age, had a successful career, raised a family, etc. does not mean they didn't "wallow in trauma"--ask anyone who is the child of an alcoholic WWII or Vietnam vet, for example.

We know he took of advantage of his ability to pass, ran multiple businesses, married, and had children. Trauma may have affected, but that's not wallowing by any definition.

Okay, so he lived as a white man, married a white woman, had white children, and you think you know how he experienced that alienation from his heritage? He may have been economically successful, but that tells us nothing about his trauma.