I say Obama would have to pay. On his mother’s white side he is likely descendant of white slave owners. But on his black side his father comes from Kenya and he is not the descendant of American slaves. In fact it is more likely he is the descendant of blacks in Africa who sold other blacks to the whites for slavery.
So in Obama’s case it looks like he would owe reparations.
In contrast, although I am a white person, my ancestors immigrated from eastern Europe in the 1870s which was after slavery was abolished. Therefore I’m not descended from slave owners.
However being of Jewish decent, I’m still waiting for reparations from the Egyptians for slavery.
This whole reparations thing gets more complicated if you get past the idea that all white people owe all black people a check. Perhaps it’s time to forget this color thing and decide we are all part of the human race?
The Government is already paying these people reparations. Its called welfare.
#32 Yep. EOT
Do I get a reparations for my relatives who died to free the slaves?
Sigh. Vonchiz, I don’t believe that this sort of reparations is a good idea. But how many of your relatives do you think died to free the slaves?
If you’re talking about Union soldiers, virtually none of them enlisted (or were drafted) after the Union decided to seek the end of slavery as a war aim. So they certainly weren’t fighting for that cause. In most cases, they were fighting to preserve the Union.
Do I get a pass for my great-great grandfather who emigrated to the US from Germany to New Orleans and was so disgusted by the first slave auction he saw he went straight to the north and joined the Union (we have it all laid out in his diary)?
That’s a pretty cool bit of family history. đ
If that’s how he described it in his diary, then I imagine he was, indeed, hoping that by fighting with the Union, he would end up helping to bring about the end of slavery. Of course, he couldn’t know what Lincoln and Congress would decide (they settled the issue of whether there would be southern emancipation in 1865), but it sounds like he was willing to take that chance — or at least knew that he wasn’t interested in siding with the society that wanted to keep slavery!
This country is so F*@K#D if we are even considering this.
It might be a bad idea, Vonchiz. But let’s not kid ourselves: our country has a terrible history when it comes to slavery, and that history affects each one of us every day.
We never even tried to make things right after we finally abolished slavery, or to make things right after the horrors of the century of brutal discrimination which followed.
We can decide that there’s no way to set things right, or that the downside outweighs the good that would be done. But debating what happened, and whether or not anything can or should be done about it, is a positively good thing for our country.
But debating what happened, and whether or not anything can or should be done about it, is a positively good thing for our country. ///
What debate?
What debate, bobbo?
This is an active debate in our national legislature, with a resolution addressing the topic passed in July, and a bill to take concrete steps having had one congressional hearing and awaiting its next.
This is also an active debate in many state legislatures right now, with more than half a dozen passing resolutions on the topic in the last two years, and many more debating the issue in that time.
States from New Jersey to Florida have apologized for their role in slavery in the last year, along with the U.S. House of Representatives, and there are more to come. In each case, the issue of reparations has been front-and-center in the discussions.
Like I said, I don’t support this sort of reparations for slavery. But I do think this discussion and debate is long overdue.
#31 James,
It hasn’t taken long for you to contradict yourself.
By focusing on producing these commodities, such societies often failed to develop industries and became trapped as agricultural and commodity-exporting countries.
then
In the case of the U.S., however, the North built much of its economy around the business of supplying slavery in the South (and the West Indies) with both agricultural (such as produce and livestock) and manufactured goods.
The South was trapped into producing single crops of either cotton or tobacco. These crops depleted the soil very quickly. They were also labor intensive to cultivate.
You will find however that the North did not build itself around supplying slaves. After 1836 it was illegal to import African slaves into either the US or British colonies. Most slave traders were from the South where their business was located.
The majority of manufacturing in the North were to compete with products from Britain.
Even more importantly, though, the northern United States was able to industrialize because of the surplus capital provided by slavery and the slave trade.
Not true. Slavery was capital intensive in its own right. Slave Plantations had very little extra capitol as most of their wealth was tied up in the value of the land and slaves.
Industrialization in the North followed the same pattern as that of Europe. Cottage industries grew as demand grew. Extra labor came from extra children leaving the farms and the immigrants reaching the new world.
In addition, U.S. textile mills received a tremendous boost by using cheap, slave-produced cotton as their raw inputs.
If the expense of the raw cotton was so important then there would have been more mills and other industry in the South.
And who paid to sneak British engineers to the U.S. to replicate their new textile mill technology? Who paid to build the giant mills of the northern U.S.?
Totally irrelevant. There was a demand for the products so the manufactures produced them. The capitol was raised in London, but even more importantly, in New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. American capitol became self generating and quite abundant once the restrictions of the pre-Revolutionary era were removed.
To be continued
#31 James
continued
Actually, in the north, for generations family farms would often have a slave or two, as well. People tend to forget that fact, but itâs why per-capita slavery was at times higher in the north than in the south.
Again, you confuse the pre-Revolutionary life with what happened after. There was very little slavery in the North and by 1820 it was mostly banned. When a farmer had several children he did not need a slave. A factory would not want to own slaves as he now became responsible for their upkeep regardless of how efficient they were. The most common place to find slaves would have been as house keepers.
Yes. Slavery didnât industrialize the southern U.S.;
Gee, isn’t that exactly what I said?
it industrialized the northern U.S.
No. The North became industrialized because it wasn’t a slave economy. The North built ships that sailed the seas bringing trade and wealth. Factories were set up to provide goods that Britain had banned prior to the Revolutionary War. Free people were consumers. Slaves were property that required upkeep.
For example, it was illegal to make buttons in colonial America, they could only be imported from Britain. Buttons were very important in keeping your knickers up. After the war buttons became one of the first products made in America. And they weren’t made in the South.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, tâs not that there wasnât room in Europe.
Farms were relatively small in Europe. A father could only divide the land so many times among his children before it became too small to farm. These were the first immigrants to America. Later immigration came from relatives already in America. BUT, if the immigrant already had a farm they did not need to leave Europe.
The second factor is that most of Europe was still feudal and the people were tied to the land. This also retarded industrial development until after the 1840’s revolutions for the exact same reasons slavery retarded development in America. Feudalism held Russia back until its 1917 revolution which explains why they were so poorly equipped during WWI.
Why do you think most immigrants went to the U.S., and far fewer to the other places you mention?
A loaded question. Much of it depends upon the time frame and origin. For example, why did the Russian Jews emigrate to America while the Cossacks couldn’t? Why did so many Norwegians and Swedes end up settling the northern plains? Books were written on both subjects.
Then you can look at restrictions placed upon immigration by Australia and South Africa. Even much of South America had immigration restrictions. How many relatives or people from the same village were already there.
Nice to see some interesting discussion of history in this thread and not just the usual name calling.
good job guys đ haha
I googled (Reparations legislation slavery) and don’t find any.
What debate?
It hasnât taken long for you to contradict yourself.
Thanks, Mr. Fusion. This is an interesting discussion.
The “contradiction” is easily explained: the South alone grew wealthy through such slave-produced commodities as cotton, but did not (by itself) industrialize. It was the North which was able to industrialize through slavery–primarily because, not being able to exploit extensive slave plantations itself, the North was forced to supply slave regions, to focus on maritime trade and finance for slave-produced goods, and to find ways to process some of those goods.
After 1836 it was illegal to import African slaves into either the US or British colonies.
Actually, it was illegal to import slaves into the U.S. or British possessions by 1808.
the North did not build itself around supplying slaves. … Most slave traders were from the South where their business was located.
That’s actually a myth.
In fact, the North conducted about 90% of all U.S. slave trading. In the last century of American slavery, of course, most of those slaves were brought to southern ports.
Slavery was capital intensive in its own right.
It was, but over time, southern slavery and northern slave-trading generated vast wealth. Much of this was poured into the development of northern textile mills, starting around 1800.
Industrialization in the North followed the same pattern as that of Europe. Cottage industries grew as demand grew.
Not at all. The northern U.S. industrialized, as you noted earlier, via textile mills which harnessed water power. These were not cottage industries, but were large-scale commercial operations requiring investors with substantial funds.
There was a demand for the products so the manufactures produced them.
There was, indeed, a growing global demand for such products.
But why didn’t the south meet that demand? Or most other countries outside of Europe? It’s not easy to create a home-grown industry to compete against an established, industrial economy.
The capitol was raised in London, but even more importantly, in New York, Philadelphia, and Boston.
Where do you think the wealth of New York, Philadelphia, and Boston came from in 1800 or 1830? Much of it was from the slave economy.
What, for instance, was the primary export of New York City in that period? Cotton.
New Yorkers made fortunes shipping cotton up from the south, and from there to U.S. textile mills and to Europe. And that’s just one example.
#35, James,
It might be a bad idea, Vonchiz. But letâs not kid ourselves: our country has a terrible history when it comes to slavery, and that history affects each one of us every day.
We never even tried to make things right after we finally abolished slavery, or to make things right after the horrors of the century of brutal discrimination which followed.
Bull crap.
The history of slavery in the US is almost 150 years ago. The nation has moved on. While we may bemoan that there was even slavery, it happened and we got past it. Mankind has progressed socially. Most of us at least.
Slavery is wrong. So is denying women the right to control their own bodies. So is teaching kids that âgodâ created the world. So is pocketing millions of dollars in bail out money because you are the CEO of a bank. So is denying people basic health care. So is torturing prisoners because they might be a terrorist. So is dropping a 2000 lb bomb on an apartment building and killing 16 people.
We, as a nation, have righted the wrong of the past century. Unfortunately it took legislation to do it, but we have done it. I am not responsible for what happened 150 years ago. Personally or otherwise. I do regret it, but I am more relieved that era has passed.
Debate? No, there is nothing to discuss except that some people want to rewrite history.
There was very little slavery in the North and by 1820 it was mostly banned.
That’s most true, but I’m not confusing pre-Revolutionary and later economics.
Most northern states still allowed slavery in 1820, but with laws providing that all slaves would eventually be emancipated.
In any event, I’ve tried to carefully distinguish between the ways in which slavery was vital to the North in colonial times (directly, and by supplying other slave-owning regions) and after about 1800 (involvement in slave production elsewhere, and industrialization).
When a farmer had several children he did not need a slave.
Yet we know that many, many northern farmers before about 1800 did have slaves. And you can be sure that most had several children, as well.
Gee, isnât that exactly what I said?
That’s why the line you quoted began with the word “yes.” đ
The North became industrialized because it wasnât a slave economy.
The North became industrialized in part because slavery wasn’t very profitable in the North, and gradually died out. This left the North free to focus on economic interactions with regions that could use slaves extensively for cash crops, and for economic development based on their slavery.
The North built ships that sailed the seas bringing trade and wealth.
And much of that was connected to slavery. For instance, as I said, the North did 90% of U.S. slave trading. And the mainstay of the northern economy prior to industrialization was providing agricultural goods, timber, and light manufactured goods to slave-owning regions.
I googled (Reparations legislation slavery) and donât find any.
What debate?
Bobbo, are you kidding? I just pasted those terms into Google, and got plenty of hits discussing federal and state legislation on the subject (including, as the #4 hit, my own blog).
Here’s a link to specific developments on my blog:
http://living.jdewperry.com/2008/04/legislation-related-to-slavery-and-the-slave-trade/
Note that this is from last spring, so it doesn’t include several more recent developments, including the passage of the House’s apology in July, and the current incarnation of H.R. 40. You’d have to google those yourself.
Mr. Fusion and bobbo, I posted another comment, which replied in detail to Mr. Fusion’s other post about the history, and to bobbo’s question about googling the “debate.”
That comment hasn’t appeared, perhaps because I provided a link in answer to one of the questions. Hopefully it’s just waiting to be moderated, and will appear eventually. đ
James–so there has been Federal Legislation introduced? I see lots of tangents. I post links all the time==copy/paste and remove the http://www.==no problems yet. Good luck, I look forward to it.
The heavy involvement of “the North” in slavery is an overlooked historical fact. I remember being taught that our good forefathers tried to enslave the American Indians but on capture they just went into their death song and died.
How lucky the Indian Nation was that the first few we got a hold of were so instilled in their freedom. Also–something about Indians were quite comfortable in escaping and living off the land.
Bobbo, what I said about your post was that I pasted the same search terms into Google, and got plenty of results about federal and state legislation related to reparations for slavery (including, as the #4 result, my own blog).
In a second, I’ll post a comment with just a link to one of my blog posts on the topic.
The point is that there is certainly a “debate”: Congress is debating a reparations bill, and one of the two houses of Congress has already passed a bill apologizing for slavery and discrimination, and pledging to “rectify the lingering consequences” of those events. That’s not necessarily a call for “reparations,” per se, but it’s definitely a call for a debate on that subject, which as I say has a bill pending already, and is in the midst of hearings.
Meanwhile, many states have been considering, or have passed, apologies for these events, with reparations always a main topic of debate with these apologies. There’s definitely a national debate going on.
Here’s the link, to a post on my blog:
http://living.jdewperry.com/2008/04/legislation-related-to-slavery-and-the-slave-trade/
Note that this isn’t completely up to date. Since that time, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the apology, and commitment to do something about it, that I mentioned before; U.S. senators have pledged to introduce parallel legislation; and several more states have been considering similar legislation.
Mr. Fusion, I apologize that my reponses on one of your historical posts haven’t appeared yet. They’re in that same comment with the link, which I hope is simply in the moderation queue.
JAMES!!! If words have meaning–States passing resolutions of apology ARE NOT REPARATIONS, nor a discussion/debate on it. In fact, issuing an apology absent other information not indicated is more a rejection of reparations than anything else.
Same with a fed bill to “study” the slavery issue: study aka do nothing.
What debate?
JAMES!!! If words have meaningâStates passing resolutions of apology ARE NOT REPARATIONS, nor a discussion/debate on it.
Sigh. Bobbo, these resolutions of apology are certainly not reparations.
However, as I said before (hopefully not just in the comment that still isn’t up), this is about whether there’s a national debate on this topic, and each of these resolutions of apology definitely invoked the topic of reparations, and raised considerable debate on the subject just in the context of debating the resolutions.
For instance, the U.S. House of Representatives in its apology, as I said, specifically committed itself to “rectify the lingering consequences” of slavery and discrimination. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that this commitment alone generated plenty of debate about reparations, on both sides of this issue.
Likewise, debate on the state apologies in each case centered in large part around the issue of reparations. In some cases, an apology passed with opponents focusing their attacks on the likelihood that reparations were now inevitable. In other cases, the resolutions were modified before passage to specifically say they weren’t yet calling for reparations, in order to satisfy opponents.
issuing an apology absent other information not indicated is more a rejection of reparations than anything else
Tell that to the opponents of apologies and reparations in the states that have debated the issue. I believe in each such state, there were prominent opponents arguing fiercely that an apology would make reparations more likely, would provide legal ammunition for reparations lawsuits, and/or make reparations positively inevitable once the apology was issued. The basic claim is that once the government admits a measure of responsibility, it can be held responsible for the consequences.
Is that the “correct” interpretation of an apology? Beats me.
Same with a fed bill to âstudyâ the slavery issue: study aka do nothing.
What debate?
You sure are persistent, bobbo. H.R. 40 is a federal bill entitled, “Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act.”
Among other things, by passing H.R. 40, Congress would “acknowledge the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States.”
It would also establish a commission “to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies” for the economic impact on African-Americans today of past slavery and discrimination.
I didn’t say this bill would constitute reparations for slavery. Just that an active debate on this bill, in Congress and throughout the country, does mean there’s a debate underway in this country on reparations.
#49–James==I don’t mean to purposefully frustrate you, and I have been lazy about reading the links in detail to find something I am so against==so, no doubt, my bad.
I watch a lot of tv news==not a peep. Now, my tv (Comcast Digital Cable)does not render sound on Democracy Now which I assume would be covering this issue every chance they get==but I can’t read lips.
I did see West and Dyson once each discuss reparations. They both made the point that it did not need to include cash grants to blacks, but could be head start education or some such. Seemed to me they were impliedly admitting there was not chance for passage.
If you don’t support the notion of reparations, why would you have a website dedicated to “discussion” of the issue? Thats weird. Always good to care about “something” as long as we don’t go overboard?
Hold on, my folks were her before the civil war, but were farmers in Pennsylvania.
My great great was a house painter in Philadelphia and as such was responsible for putting a lot of that leaded house paint on the walls some people allowed their children to eat. So does that mean I have to pay reparations to those same “some” people who ate leaded house paint. This just gets confusier and confusier.
Doesn’t this mean my great great great who ran a cotton mill in Boston has to pay southern plantation owners for their help he stole and started the whole civil war thing to get more.
Reparations are only valid when something is taken. In this case, the slavery situation was the existing situation, and it was freedom that was granted.
Okay, my delayed comment has been moderated (thanks!) and is up … but in order by when I submitted it, which means you’d have to scroll up to comment #44 to see it.
I donât mean to purposefully frustrate you, and I have been lazy about reading the links in detail to find something I am so against==so, no doubt, my bad.
No problem, bobbo. I’m fine with that. đ
I watch a lot of tv news==not a peep.
Yeah, you’re not going to see a lot of coverage of these issues on television. Even with my Comcast service, which features sound on every channel.
Seemed to me they were impliedly admitting there was not chance for passage.
If you figure they must be moderating their demands in order to secure passage, sure. The other interpretation, of course, is that many people (perhaps including them) are concerned with finding reasonable solutions which are just for everyone. Individual checks, not so reasonable or just; what West and Dyson were talking about, much more so.
why would you have a website dedicated to âdiscussionâ of the issue?
I don’t. I have a web site devoted to discussing the history and legacy of slavery and race in the United States.
Now, there are people who think that conversation necessarily requires us to think about reparations. I don’t think so, and I assume no one here does, but I do recognize that I can’t have such a web site without occasionally mentioning the politics of reparations. Or else a critical piece of the national conversation on race would be missing.
Hold on, my folks were her before the civil war, but were farmers in Pennsylvania.
Yes, Pennsylvania farmers (in general, not necessarily any particular farmers) were deeply implicated in slavery, but you probably knew that already. đ
So does that mean I have to pay reparations to those same âsomeâ people who ate leaded house paint.
Your great-great-grandfather couldn’t possibly have known that lead paint was a hazard to the neurological development of children exposed to lead paint dust.
So I’m going to go out on a limb and say no, that situation isn’t comparable. đ
Of course, lead paint companies responsible for acting after the dangers were known have, indeed, been held legally accountable for their actions.
In this case, the slavery situation was the existing situation, and it was freedom that was granted.
How interesting, MikeN. So our society isn’t responsible for its two-and-a-half centuries of enslaving other human beings … but gets to take credit for having eventually stopped doing it? đ
Reparation etymology: from L.L. reparationem reparatio “act of repairing, restoration,” from L. reparatus, pp. of reparare “restore”
So, from this we get the actual solution. Those who want “reparation” for something that happened to their ancestors, receive transport back to where their ancestors were taken from + relocation $ enough to buy an average residence in that area.
Oh, yes. Give up their U.S. Citizenship…
The answer to slave reparations is very simple. Place a check box on tax forms that indicate you will donate your tax refund toward slave reparations.
This will be the most unchecked box on the form. Why? For some reason, the phenomenon of liberal white guilt can only be satisfied by sacrificing other peoples money.
#56 FTW
#54–James==there’s no “Home” or Contents/Menu on the link you gave. Still, I’ll explore your site more later.
I’ve always been “interested” in the issue of slavery and homosexuality because “the truth” of several related issues seem so clear to me at an early age yet I constantly ran into people/religion that hold opposing views. “Weird” and hateful I say to myself.
Reparations gets a double load of this in my mind. The whole dogma/nonsense about Jebeesus dying for our sins, the sin of being born to a woman who had sinned is making descendants responsible for what their ancestors did. A type of reparations if you will. I call BS on the religious type and the racial as well. No one is responsible for what gramps did.
Now, closely related is that whole “whites/society is still benefiting from the institution of slavery.” Very debatable. Also debatable: net/net how many American Blacks would rather be in Africa now? Which brings us back to how bad life can suck and my anti-theism.
The hypocrisy man is capable of always astounds me. I enjoy catching myself when I do it–it does require attention though.
Bobbo,
I’m afraid James is a flyby troll. Ready to dump some garbage on this one topic then to never return. A quick look at his web site should show why is a one subject troll.
#60–Fusion==hard to tell with nicknames, but I think James has been posting for a while? Why so negative? By posting a link to “his” blog, isn’t he inviting as full a discussion as we wish on his specialty subject? I can see visiting there to post should reparations become a hot issue?
BTW–good one on identifying the rank order of pain on the tattoo thread. Cracked me up.
#58 Very compelling & logical argument.
Aahhh, no. Very few farmers had slaves in the Northern States. Even fewer would have had slaves during colonial times.
Quite the contrary, Mr. Fusion. It was very common for northern colonial farmers in the 17th and 18th centuries to have one or more slaves.
This is one reason why slavery was so common in the north until it started gradually dying out around the time of the Revolution. I can provide references if you’d like.
Your constant claiming otherwise is not based upon any facts.
Let’s see. To start with, I’d recommend Melish, Disowning Slavery (1998) and Farrow et al., eds., Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery (2005).
The slaves in the North were almost all in the border States; Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky. And they were used on larger plantation type farms and as house servants.
Slaves in the north were primarily owned on small farms or in middle- or upper-middle-class households. This is why the per-capita slavery rate was so high in before 1800 in states such as Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, despite those states not having many large plantations
I am not responsible for your great uncle stealing a horse either.
I didn’t say you or I were responsible, Mr. Fusion, for what others have done. I asked whether our society was responsible for what it had done, and for what it benefits from to this day.