Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some countries like Germany have given reparations to African countries this isn't unrealistic. But I won't hold my breathe on this matter.
When" The Germans still don't want to admit to the full extent of the genocidal acts that they committed in Namibia when it was under their control. Some trivial attempts but none connected to providing reparative justice to the Herrero and others who suffered.
The only reparative justice was provided by the UK gov't to a few individuals who were directly related to people who were damaged by the colonial gov'ts during the Mau Mau wars.
The African role in slavery is not relevant to Jim Crow, to segregation, to mass incarceration, to massive discrimination in housing and employment.
Well Israel isn't kind to Israeli Arabs and black Jews in that nation suffer the same types of discrimination that blacks in the USA endure.
I suggest that reparations be confined to Jim Crow and its aftermath. That way we don't have to deal with the profits derived from selling enslaved peoples that elite Africans benefitted from, or the fact that most whites in the USA had nothing to do with slavery.
Jim Crow occurred in the USA and much of it was state sanctioned. All whites have n=benefitted as de facto Jim Crow also existed outside of the South. Blacks in pre Civil War NYC were undermined when the arrival of European immigrants allowed employers to marginalize black tradesmen and business people.
Well Israel isn't kind to Israeli Arabs and black Jews in that nation suffer the same types of discrimination that blacks in the USA endure.
I suggest that reparations be confined to Jim Crow and its aftermath. That way we don't have to deal with the profits derived from selling enslaved peoples that elite Africans benefitted from, or the fact that most whites in the USA had nothing to do with slavery.
Jim Crow occurred in the USA and much of it was state sanctioned. All whites have n=benefitted as de facto Jim Crow also existed outside of the South. Blacks in pre Civil War NYC were undermined when the arrival of European immigrants allowed employers to marginalize black tradesmen and business people.
Well Israel isn't kind to Israeli Arabs and black Jews in that nation suffer the same types of discrimination that blacks in the USA endure.
I suggest that reparations be confined to Jim Crow and its aftermath. That way we don't have to deal with the profits derived from selling enslaved peoples that elite Africans benefitted from, or the fact that most whites in the USA had nothing to do with slavery.
Jim Crow occurred in the USA and much of it was state sanctioned. All whites have n=benefitted as de facto Jim Crow also existed outside of the South. Blacks in pre Civil War NYC were undermined when the arrival of European immigrants allowed employers to marginalize black tradesmen and business people.
During the Jim Crow years agriculture and domestics were the only work available to Black peoole for the most part. Essentially Jim Crow was a continuation of slavery which lasted until the 60s and 70s.
The whole reparations strategy is flawed and based on lay thinking. It is a fact that Transatlantic slavery was as large as it was because there was active participation of Africans in these ventures. This being especially true for those traded out of the Gold Coast and the Bights of Benin and Biafra. It is also a fact that few whites living in the USA in 2019 benefitted from slavery.
The focus should instead be based on the losses that Jim Crow created. There was wanton destruction of many black communities with many blacks losing assets. This not due only to criminal acts of private individuals, but also due to the active involvement in state actors. There was also the redlining of many majority nonwhite communities with "urban renewal" being an especially destructive aspect of this. Thanks to actions by the Federal gov't blacks were denied access to the tools which would have allowed wealth accumulation.
It is easy to prove that people DIRECTLY suffered from these acts as people can point to specific events and how their families were damaged. Most whites also benefitted from this, regardless as to whether their ancestors were involved in slavery or not. In addition these actions are purely the result of decisions that were made by people in the USA, so we need not get into what people in Africa did.
So refocus on the damaging impacts of Jim Crow and its aftermath, inclusive of redlining. Forget that slavery part.
Active participation of Africans does not exonerate the role of America. Keep in mind that Africa was colonized by the Europeans eventually. Africans, themselves, can argue for reparations from all the gold, diamonds, natural resources, etc, taken from them. I don't know, but I think if you have African tribes willing to sell their war captives to the Europeans in exchange for weapons that would make them stronger than than rival tribes, it would then behoove other tribes to trade humans for weapons also, lest they be raided and overthrown by the stronger tribes. Whether it was the plan or not, it was classic divide and conquer. The old African proverb states that war between grasshoppers delights the crows. In this case the grasshoppers were the African tribes and the crows were the Europeans.
If one is a citizen of this country, in 2019, as a citizen they inherit the assets and liabilities of the country. Think of it as if you inherit a business or an estate. Before you decide to accept the inherited business or estate, the asset, you must be aware and willing to accept the liabilities that come with the inheritance. One cannot say...."I just want the assets from the estate....but I don't want the liabilities because I had nothing to do with creating them". Ergo, as a citizen, one enjoys the FREEDOMS secured by the sacrifices of others in the past. Equally, any debt of the past, as a citizen, you are obligated to pay....and NO, having nothing to do with creating those debts is not a reason for exception unless you want to forfeit the freedoms you inherited without having created either.
Reparations, therefore, should be from slavery to Jim Crow......as that whole era accrued losses upon slaves and slave descendants.
As far as the original question of the topic, I am in a city with a high percentage of the "black" population being African. My personal experience, as an African American, is that I get along with the Africans BETTER than I do African Americans. The friends I have made since moving here are mostly Africans. If I almost married an East African women....but I had to let her go to marry an African American that I was having a long term relation with as well.
I would say,concentrate the argument for reparations on Jim Crow, de facto segregation, redlining of residential areas and
focus on economic/educational disfranchisement that set the starting point behind for people who are still living.
As far as Africans are concerned, it should be noted that already that leaders from Benin and Ghana apologized to AAs in
Atlanta for their countries role in slavery. (Dahomey and Ashanti kingdoms economy and profit was built on slavery, these
were slaving states that arose from the profit of the slave-trade.)
In a documentary, one Benin woman who is descended from a large slave-trading family says every time she meets a Black American
she feels guilty.
My contention is that claims for reparations by American Descendants of American Slavery should focus on the aftermath of the Reconstruction era. Angered by the political and economic power that a significant segment of the black population amassed during this period an extreme violent backlash occurred, this culminating in very harsh Jim Crow laws in the South and very harsh de facto Jim Crow segregation elsewhere.
The result was an attack on black wealth with significant losses occurring. This wasn't due black slave owners or African kings selling enslaved peoples to Europeans. This wasn't something that many whites, who weren't slave owners, didn't also benefit from. Clearly the destruction of black social/economic networks and the exclusion of blacks from opportunity benefitted many whites, whether wealthy former slave owners, or recent European immigrants.
There are people still alive who can trace connectivity to events in Tulsa, OK and other places. Clearly redlining strategies by the Federal government and real estate covenants disappeared within the life time of many living people.
This will disrupt the arguments that, blacks were also perpetrators, not just victims, that not all whites owned slaves, or that Africans were as involved in the Transatlantic slave trade. No. This was a distinctly US phenomenon which has very clear repercussions up to day, as redlining in some situations still exists (predatory mortgages), even if less than it did in 1970.
Active participation of Africans does not exonerate the role of America. Keep in mind that Africa was colonized by the Europeans eventually. Africans, themselves, can argue for reparations from all the gold, diamonds, natural resources, etc, taken from them. .
The fact that the wars that various African entities fought to provide a continuous supply of enslaved peoples for the Transatlantic slave trade. And the fact that the constant state of war and misdirection of resources ultimately weakened many of these entities isn't the fault of the Europeans. Its decisions made by African elites, and if the end result was European conquest, well c'est la vie. Colonization came almost a century after the British (and reluctantly the Americans) ended the slave trade in 1807.
Even after such trade was made illegal there was ample sale of enslaved peoples. Due you know that almost 90% of the enslaved peoples taken to Cuba, and 40% to Brazil arrived after such trade was made illegal?
Africans weren't kids, and in fact some were highly sophisticated peoples, so knew what they were doing.
An argument which is easier is to base reparations around Jim Crow (de facto and de jure), inclusive of redlining and racially biased predatory mortgages. It occurred in the USA. No Africans were involved. This was a US phenomenon and, yes, even poor whites benefited from this. And even the descendants of slave owning black Americans suffered. Furthermore the costs are quantifiable and many people are still alive who went through this, or in other instances, their kids/grandkids. So while some say "get over it, slavery ended a long time ago" Jim Crow legally ended in the mid 60s and its aftermath and repercussions haven't completed disappeared 50 years later.
My contention is that claims for reparations by American Descendants of American Slavery should focus on the aftermath of the Reconstruction era.
No. These people are on stolen land. The "Native Americans" on reservations are on stolen land. These Europeans and their heirs will pay dearly for every piece of land they stole and continue to steal from black Americans, since before they started documenting their thievery. This is promised. They'd do well to start making it right themselves before the decision is made for them. Either way, they will not like the consequences.
The fact that the wars that various African entities fought to provide a continuous supply of enslaved peoples for the Transatlantic slave trade. And the fact that the constant state of war and misdirection of resources ultimately weakened many of these entities isn't the fault of the Europeans. Its decisions made by African elites, and if the end result was European conquest, well c'est la vie. Colonization came almost a century after the British (and reluctantly the Americans) ended the slave trade in 1807.
Even after such trade was made illegal there was ample sale of enslaved peoples. Due you know that almost 90% of the enslaved peoples taken to Cuba, and 40% to Brazil arrived after such trade was made illegal?
Africans weren't kids, and in fact some were highly sophisticated peoples, so knew what they were doing.
An argument which is easier is to base reparations around Jim Crow (de facto and de jure), inclusive of redlining and racially biased predatory mortgages. It occurred in the USA. No Africans were involved. This was a US phenomenon and, yes, even poor whites benefited from this. And even the descendants of slave owning black Americans suffered. Furthermore the costs are quantifiable and many people are still alive who went through this, or in other instances, their kids/grandkids. So while some say "get over it, slavery ended a long time ago" Jim Crow legally ended in the mid 60s and its aftermath and repercussions haven't completed disappeared 50 years later.
100+.
Had this convo with family. Same points I've brought up too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
