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.
Here is an interview with Dr. Claude Anderson. In this video he talks about Black slave reparations in relation to Native Americans. I was just curious to get some opinions of his comments.
The section of the video I'm referring to starts at 19:30 to 24:40.
I want to check Civil War and Native American history, to see if it's true that the 5 Civilized Tribes, so-called, fought on the side of the South. What I do know is that some tribal members had slaves, but it was a "kinder, gentler" slavery; nobody was forced to wear collars, no one AFAIK was whipped or had a foot chopped off to prevent escape, or was otherwise treated brutally. I'd also need to research the treaties he quotes, as to whether it's true they included a clause regarding helping the government maintain slavery. I've never heard that before.
He over-generalizes when discussing reparations, implying that all Native Americans got "reparations" via the Dawes rolls. The Dawes rolls were a phenomenon limited to tribes in the "Indian Territory", the future state of Oklahoma. It wasn't a nation-wide thing at all. I wouldn't call what the treaties promised to Native people as "reparations". They weren't handed an amount of money to give them a boost in joining the surrounding society (which they had no interest in doing, anyway). And what they did "get" at the time was woefully inadequate, during the time that reservations were established. (Or at any time since then, really.) People starved. I suppose what the speaker is trying to say is that in some way, the treaties could be regarded as a legal precedent that the African American community could cite in making a case for reparations. That's really stretching it.
The primary problem with the idea of reparations is that in this particular case, it would involve people who were not part of the cause of the suffering, paying people who were never enslaved.
The other main difficulty is in identifying who merits reparation payments and who should have to pay. Should all of European ancestry pay all of African ancestry, whether or not those white ancestors ever owned slaves, or whether or not the black ancestors were indeed enslaved? How much does a white, 40,000 dollar a year postal worker owe to a black recording star who pulls down a half million annually?
@Ruth: Some titles on the subject from my personal library include, "The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist," "The American Indian in the Civil War, 1862-1865," and "The American Indian and the End of the Confederacy 1863-1866" all by Annie Heloise Abel. There is also "General Stand Watie's Confederate Indians" by Frank Cunningham. "Kepis and Turkey Calls" Eds Cantrell and Harris, and "Wolves for the Blue Soldiers" by Dunlay cover Indians and the civil war in the West.
@Ruth: Some titles on the subject from my personal library include, "The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist," "The American Indian in the Civil War, 1862-1865," and "The American Indian and the End of the Confederacy 1863-1866" all by Annie Heloise Abel. There is also "General Stand Watie's Confederate Indians" by Frank Cunningham. "Kepis and Turkey Calls" Eds Cantrell and Harris, and "Wolves for the Blue Soldiers" by Dunlay cover Indians and the civil war in the West.
Thanks. (OP: also thanks for posting that link). I looked up Annie Abel; interesting historian.
Still, the basic question is whether the US gov't's treaties and their obligations toward the tribes could be cited as a precedent for reparations to the descendants of slaves. I think it's a highly debatable point. The history is interesting, though, and the speaker's line of analysis, as well. It's enlightening to view history from different perspectives.
The primary problem with the idea of reparations is that in this particular case, it would involve people who were not part of the cause of the suffering, paying people who were never enslaved.
The other main difficulty is in identifying who merits reparation payments and who should have to pay. Should all of European ancestry pay all of African ancestry, whether or not those white ancestors ever owned slaves, or whether or not the black ancestors were indeed enslaved? How much does a white, 40,000 dollar a year postal worker owe to a black recording star who pulls down a half million annually?
The third problem is that there's always two sides to a transaction, and in case of slave trade it was the black Africans who owned the supply chain of the slave trade all the way up to the slave ship.
The slave trade in Africa had existed uninterrupted since before the pharaoh's times. All slaves were captured by other African tribal leaders and sold to the traders. The buyers changed with time - Egyptians, Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans, Byzantines, Islamic Caliphates, Ottomans, Europeans, Americans - but the sellers stayed the same.
My family roots going back a few generations are from the Eastern and Central Europe - primarily Austria-Hungary and nearby areas. They all came here in the early XX century, well after slavery was abolished.
There's more white Americans of German than English descent. The countries in the Eastern and Central Europe (Austria, Hungary, Germany, Poland, Russia, Czechoslovakia etc) were never involved in African slave trade (they had a form of slavery called serfdom but the serfs were the native peasants, not black Africans). So, why should I pay reparations to some black person whose ancestors very likely included not only slaves, but also African slave hunters ?
The third problem is that there's always two sides to a transaction, and in case of slave trade it was the black Africans who owned the supply chain of the slave trade all the way up to the slave ship.
The slave trade in Africa had existed uninterrupted since before the pharaoh's times. All slaves were captured by other African tribal leaders and sold to the traders. The buyers changed with time - Egyptians, Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans, Byzantines, Islamic Caliphates, Ottomans, Europeans, Americans - but the sellers stayed the same.
My family roots going back a few generations are from the Eastern and Central Europe - primarily Austria-Hungary and nearby areas. They all came here in the early XX century, well after slavery was abolished.
There's more white Americans of German than English descent. The countries in the Eastern and Central Europe (Austria, Hungary, Germany, Poland, Russia, Czechoslovakia etc) were never involved in African slave trade (they had a form of slavery called serfdom but the serfs were the native peasants, not black Africans). So, why should I pay reparations to some black person whose ancestors very likely included not only slaves, but also African slave hunters ?
Not going to happen.
Good points. Along those same lines, at its height, 33% of the population of the Roman Empire was enslaved. Further, the invading western tribes took slaves as part of their conquests, as did later the invading Norse. I'm confident that a hefty segment of the white American population could trace ancestry to someone held in slavery. Do reparations come with an expiration date?
Dividing responsibility could also be a problem. According to what my sister learned when she researched our family, there were four brothers in South Carolina who owned three slaves and took them with them to Missouri when the family relocated there. When the Civil War erupted, three of the brothers enlisted and fought for the Union, the other brother became a regimental surgeon for the Confederacy. So 75 % of my more immediate ancestors fought to free the slaves while 25% fought to keep them in bondage. Does that mean I owe only 25% of what someone with solid Confederate supporters for ancestors should have to pay?
If this were to come into effect, I would be possibly paying reparations for ancestors who owned slaves while simultaneously getting money for my ancestors on the Dawes Roll.
If it were to come into effect, I'd move to another country and take my money with me.
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.
at the time was woefully inadequate, during the time that reservations were established. (Or at any time since then, really.) People starved. I suppose what the speaker is trying to say is that in some way, the treaties could be regarded as a legal precedent that the African American community could cite in making a case for reparations. That's really stretching it.
