Uncle Milty wrote:

pacino wrote:i figured it would detract and it was just a one-off joke so i got rid of it

just bustin your chops

nobody busts my chops and gets away with it!

pacino wrote:you have to make a claimant whole.

I don't understand this. A claim alone is not sufficient cause to receive a benefit, entitlement, settlement or judgement.

pacino wrote:the wealth disparity our society has created is a real thing that needs to be rectified.

No doubt. But the disparity doesn't just affect African-Americans or only the descendants of former slaves.

I am interested to read a plan to accomplish what Pac or TV propose.

Uncle Milty wrote:I am interested to read a plan to accomplish what Pac or TV propose.

My plan is pretty easy. Start with acknowledging that justice requires reparations. Then, start a conversation how best to do it. An obvious starting point is restoring property to its rightful owners. Black people were systematically robbed of land and other property well into the twentieth century. Like art stolen by Nazis, it should be returned.

JFLNYC wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:I had no idea he was so articulate.

Careful there partner...

Wow. I didn’t think you capable of going that low.

Now now JFly, you know I love you, you are one of my favorite posters on this board... just that in the circles in which I travel, that sort of construction has become loaded, and while I am sure you did not mean it that way, I just thought I'd say something in case you were not aware or (I figured more likely) had not thought about it much before posting, since what you said there is a little different than what people ordinarily react to ("So-and-so is so articulate!").

Hell, many years ago it was a friend of mine - who I don't consider to be particularly "woke" - who clued me in on how the use of that term to describe a black man can come across.

Oh shit, was that friend me? I'm pretty woke these days, I like to think.

Anyway, I assumed JFfly was making a little joke there, based on the racial connotations of the term.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:I am interested to read a plan to accomplish what Pac or TV propose.

My plan is pretty easy. Start with acknowledging that justice requires reparations. Then, start a conversation how best to do it. An obvious starting point is restoring property to its rightful owners. Black people were systematically robbed of land and other property well into the twentieth century. Like art stolen by Nazis, it should be returned.

I think describing "acknowledging justice requires reparations" as pretty easy is pretty unrealistic. The conversation after about method would be the easy part imo.

When restoring stolen property is the current possessor of the property made whole? Does it matter if they're descended from the offender? I don't find Nazi stolen art an apt comparison.

One last question - what's the requirement for receiving reparations? Lineage? Race? Skin color?

Uncle Milty wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:I am interested to read a plan to accomplish what Pac or TV propose.

My plan is pretty easy. Start with acknowledging that justice requires reparations. Then, start a conversation how best to do it. An obvious starting point is restoring property to its rightful owners. Black people were systematically robbed of land and other property well into the twentieth century. Like art stolen by Nazis, it should be returned.

I think describing "acknowledging justice requires reparations" as pretty easy is pretty unrealistic. The conversation after about method would be the easy part imo.

When restoring stolen property is the current possessor of the property made whole? Does it matter if they're descended from the offender? I don't find Nazi stolen art an apt comparison.

One last question - what's the requirement for receiving reparations? Lineage? Race? Skin color?

The acknowledgment is easy. I've done it twice in this thread. Pretty fucking easy. I don't see what's hard about it. The argument seems pretty air tight to me as well:

1. Justice requires compensation when an injustice has occurred.
2. African Americans have suffered injustice
3. Justice requires African Americans receive compensation.

I think people assume it means cash payments to individuals, but that's not necessarily the case. That's why the specifics of how to rectify it are difficult. It would probably vary from locality to locality.

As far as the return of stolen property--as far as I know, if you have property that at some point was stolen, you're not entitled to that property. At least with land, you might be compensated through your title insurance. You would of course be entitled to compensation from the person who originally stole the property. Keep in mind, I'm talking about specific events. Various means, often involving violence or the threat of violence, were used to steal specific pieces of land and other property from African Americans. I really don't see how that's different from Nazi art. I do think part of all this must acknowledge how bad things really were well into the 20th century. It wasn't just about separate bathrooms.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... gJN0vD_BwE

If you do it, then you have to give back original native american land.

Can of worms, opened.

Monkeyboy wrote:If you do it, then you have to give back original native american land.

Can of worms, opened.

So the entire continent then.

Monkeyboy wrote:If you do it, then you have to give back original native american land.

Can of worms, opened.

Oklahoma comes to mind.

Uncle Milty wrote:

pacino wrote:you have to make a claimant whole.

I don't understand this. A claim alone is not sufficient cause to receive a benefit, entitlement, settlement or judgement.

pacino wrote:the wealth disparity our society has created is a real thing that needs to be rectified.

No doubt. But the disparity doesn't just affect African-Americans or only the descendants of former slaves.

I'm coming from the place that the claim is justified and evidence is sufficient.

And yesz we should include indigenous peoples in this as well. I mean we already did a form of reparations for Japanese-Americans.

pacino wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:

pacino wrote:you have to make a claimant whole.

I don't understand this. A claim alone is not sufficient cause to receive a benefit, entitlement, settlement or judgement.

pacino wrote:the wealth disparity our society has created is a real thing that needs to be rectified.

No doubt. But the disparity doesn't just affect African-Americans or only the descendants of former slaves.

I'm coming from the place that the claim is justified and evidence is sufficient.

And yesz we should include indigenous peoples in this as well. I mean we already did a form of reparations for Japanese-Americans.

I agree--and given that I think reparations should be community based, rather than targeting individuals (the exception as noted above being when one can demonstrate the expropriation of specific property) there's no reason why Native Americans shouldn't be included here.

phatj wrote:Oh shit, was that friend me? I'm pretty woke these days, I like to think.

Anyway, I assumed JFfly was making a little joke there, based on the racial connotations of the term.

If so, I apologize. Actually, it was a friend of high school. We were discussing Mayor Street, probably around 2001.

TenuredVulture wrote:
The acknowledgment is easy. I've done it twice in this thread. Pretty fucking easy. I don't see what's hard about it. The argument seems pretty air tight to me as well:

1. Justice requires compensation when an injustice has occurred.
2. African Americans have suffered injustice
3. Justice requires African Americans receive compensation.

This is one of our disconnects. I appreciate your conviction but you state this as some universal truth when it is not. Reparations in some form receive roughly 25% approval. Unsure how much recent events influence that number or how support wanes based on the form of reparation.

Do you still advocate if the result is a net loss in "justice"? It's a very real possibility that reparations push support to conservatives for a long time. I think we know where that leads.

TenuredVulture wrote:

pacino wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:

pacino wrote:you have to make a claimant whole.

I don't understand this. A claim alone is not sufficient cause to receive a benefit, entitlement, settlement or judgement.

pacino wrote:the wealth disparity our society has created is a real thing that needs to be rectified.

No doubt. But the disparity doesn't just affect African-Americans or only the descendants of former slaves.

I'm coming from the place that the claim is justified and evidence is sufficient.

And yesz we should include indigenous peoples in this as well. I mean we already did a form of reparations for Japanese-Americans.

I agree--and given that I think reparations should be community based, rather than targeting individuals (the exception as noted above being when one can demonstrate the expropriation of specific property) there's no reason why Native Americans shouldn't be included here.

So is this only an American responsibility? Is there a time limitation? Do descendants of the Roman Empire owe many of us something? The Khan dynasties? Ottoman Empire? Egypt?

My point is that enslavement and oppression by the powerful is one of the few enduring conditions of the human history. Although we've evolved it continues today. I suggest any and all energy and resources are better spent on improving today and securing the future than paying for the past.

Shocked to see the other N word trending on twitter. Thanks Roger Stone.

http://mrmokelly.com/2020/07/roger_stone_mokelly/

less than conclusive

:notsureifserious.gif:

12:30 of the audio in the link

Uncle Milty wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

pacino wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:

pacino wrote:you have to make a claimant whole.

I don't understand this. A claim alone is not sufficient cause to receive a benefit, entitlement, settlement or judgement.

pacino wrote:the wealth disparity our society has created is a real thing that needs to be rectified.

No doubt. But the disparity doesn't just affect African-Americans or only the descendants of former slaves.

I'm coming from the place that the claim is justified and evidence is sufficient.

And yesz we should include indigenous peoples in this as well. I mean we already did a form of reparations for Japanese-Americans.

I agree--and given that I think reparations should be community based, rather than targeting individuals (the exception as noted above being when one can demonstrate the expropriation of specific property) there's no reason why Native Americans shouldn't be included here.

So is this only an American responsibility? Is there a time limitation? Do descendants of the Roman Empire owe many of us something? The Khan dynasties? Ottoman Empire? Egypt?

My point is that enslavement and oppression by the powerful is one of the few enduring conditions of the human history. Although we've evolved it continues today. I suggest any and all energy and resources are better spent on improving today and securing the future than paying for the past.

It's our government that owes people reparations. If it can be proven that a government systematically enslaved, disenfranchised, and prevented equality and equity for a group of people, there should be reparations. It's pretty easy to do that for many governments within the US, up to and including the federal government itself.