Dirty_Jerz
Ethiop
Alright I'm a little late but I wanted to get everything in order. I didn't find the exact articles I had in mind but found this:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/blj/vol20/feagin.pdf
This is one legal perspective published by Harvard Law Journal. I am not a lawyer and this is just my reading of it.
It cites legal precedents for reparations.
Short summary:
The Japanese received reparations for internment after 50 years of legal maneuvering. 20 grand per family.
The Jews received reparations from multiple parties due in large part to the American government leaning on those parties for compensation.
Some Native American tribes have been going for the return of stolen land for years. Offered settlements. Mixed bag.
Rosewood and Tulsa are specific incidents related to Black American reparations. Rosewood worked. Families eligible for $150,000 in compensation. Tulsa did not. Statute of limitations got in the way.
The difference is that the United States of America would have to willingly agree to be a defendant unless you went to the UN and they generally run that place too. Or you'd have to have the weight of the government on your side and they aren't.
The case:
You'd have to show that labor, and therefore wealth, was stolen under slavery (easy), segregation (not as easy), and today (not easy at all).
You'd want to show that inter generational wealth has been taken because of the physical and psychological effects of racism, slavery, segregation. You'd have to establish what constitutes an undue harm and then attach appropriate costs to them. The problem here is that this particular article states that BILLIONS of specific incidents have occurred that fall under this area. If there is a malpractice lawsuit or something like that, a handful or a couple dozen incidents are easy to rule on. Don't know how a court could decide on billions of incidents, the vast majority of which are lost to history.
The money:
This is where I had a problem with this particular write-up.
One way about determining how much to pay is with the goal to decrease the wealth gap. Seems fair enough. However, that isn't what reparations is based on. What is called just entitlement doesn't take into account if you live in the projects or are Oprah. So everybody that can show just entitlement, you have been harmed by action or inaction of the federal government, (which is where I made the point of it being hard to determine who gets what) then you will be awarded money. This just entitlement piece is important because it highlights that this is not about wealth gaps or the money specifically. Jewish and Japanese Americans are, on whole, better off than the average American citizen and they still received compensation. A counter argument to reparations is that blacks receive welfare and that is payment enough. Completely unrelated to the case of financial harm incurred.
Forget they years the original case would take, everybody and their mom with a black adopted cousin, who grew up in a black neighborhood, who has a black step parent or child, would be lining up at the door. Recent African immigrants would be entitled to money but how much would be a whole new court battle.
It all sounds nice but fat chance. The President isn't going to make it happen. Congress has been kicking it around for about 15 years and it's going nowhere.
Now something else kind of related is work by a Dr. Melinda Miller, another fool economics professor as Say It would claim. She followed the economic well being of freedmen who were given land after being released by the Cherokees. The descendants of these people have done better than those who were left without compensation. Big surprise but it does illustrate how important that inter generational wealth piece is. Thomas Sowell (mixed fillings about his conclusions but you can't argue with numbers) determined the same thing. Those that lived as freedmen before the Civil War had descendants that were better off that those who were not.
My take: again I don't argue with the idea of reparations. In every moral sense they are due. In every legal sense, well........ yes but that doesn't mean it's gonna happen. Stranger things have happened though. But I'd say no cuz American could frankly give a shyt about Black people.
If someone actually takes the thing to court you can count of years of bullshyt, increased racial tension, a decade of appeals, billions of dollars wasted in the trials and implementation of whatever new department they'd have to come up with to distribute funds, shytloads of fraud, and whatever bullshyt people do to each other when big money gets involved.

alright check this out, the case for proving the psychological and physical damage through all these things does seem difficult with the current situation of things but establishing what constitutes as undue harm might not be. there should be plenty of cases that black people have gone through in these days that could be comparable in a sense and a direct off shoot result of the effect slavery has had on the minds of those who practice these forms of hate crimes STILL against black people possibly causing harm or death as a result like their ancestors, thats why i think its so important we dont forget any of the unfair court rulings, it could definantly count for something one day.
situations like jena 6, chris dorner, the white guy on the step shooting and killing a baby and her dad for walking past them, the black children who get abused by cops everyday, im talking grown men (white) scooping up a black girl off a bike and slamming her on the road and macing her because he felt like it, the black mentally handicapped guy in the parking lot who got 5-6 cops emptying their clips on him because he appeared threatening even though everybody knew he was special type things. im not a lawyer either but i would hope this has some clout in court lol idk tho
or better yet if they had some KKK klansmen and rich white folks whose money has been in the family for centuries testify to this history from their side it would be lot easier, same people who keep records of anything else.. im sure there is documentation of alot of things to help get into the intricacies of atleast some of those billion something cases
the money being paid back through welfare is garbage imo since for one it isnt for just black people and two do you know how hard it is to actually get welfare? welfare really could be the reperations if it was done completely different compared to now; of course that isnt happening but as of now when you do actually manage to get welfare there is a big chance you dont get medicaid and no printed cash but instead just a food stamps card and an incredibly low amount unless you are a pregnant woman then you get slightly more. also the welfare program is suppose to help you find a job and teach you working skills so you can find work, if you go to your local welfare office building i can almost garuntee you will just find people filling out a bunch of apps like you can do anywhere else, its disgusting. guess who got those jobs at the office too? mostly white people, how fitting right?

that cherokee freedman study should be proof enough though too smh.... if it was a study about how such an such food group isnt good to eat based on theories it would be on faux/cbs news in the morning before work and people would live by it
im going to read that pdf though breh props for that
Last edited: