Kamala Harris Supports ‘Some Type of’ Slavery Reparations

[Metis1]

It simply is not “revisionist history” in any way as one can easily find if they bother to look it up. However, it is certainly not the only thing that changed the voting habits in the South from Democrat to Republican, but it certainly more paramount than any other single factor. Even LBJ admitted that when he signed the 1960’s Civil rights Acts in that this would very much hurt the Democratic Party in the South, and he was correct.

The real “revisionist history” are those that deny that this is what really happened, and all it takes is maybe 10 minutes of one’s time to check it our at a non-partisan source. Maybe give it a go.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Even liberal vox admits the program failed.

Why the war on poverty failed — and what to do now - Vox

http://humanevents.com/2005/09/14/the-great-society-failure-of-an-idea-and-a-people/

I’d read Walter WIlliams quoted above and others.

Oh, I agree the program failed to lift up the poor. I just disagree that it caused the huge net worth discrepancy we see today.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Proof, please. How did poor whites in Appalachia, for example benefit from slavery? How did the dead whites at Civil War benefit from slavery?

They didn’t. I think one could make a reasonable argument that almost no whites benefitted from slavery and, in fact, were harmed by it even while it was going on. Slavery was largely a “cash agribusiness” aspect. Commodities like cotton, tobacco, indigo, sugar, rice, were efficient users of slaves and were big in the export market. Most other agricultural pursuits weren’t. It didn’t pay to have slaves for more prevalent subsistence farming, because the slaves had to subsist on the products of their own labor too. Slaves were very expensive, and subsistence farmers couldn’t buy them even if somehow it had been efficient to have them.

Commodity agribusiness then wasn’t a whole lot different from commodity agribusiness now. It was massive, drove small producers out and ultimately led southerners into “…a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight…” that was the Civil War. The poverty of both blacks and whites in the south after the Civil War was owed to slavery too; a poverty from which the south has only recovered during current lifetimes.

Appalachia was nearly all white because it’s not conducive to commodity agribusiness and therefore slavery. People ate what they grew and spun what they wore. They benefitted from their own labor, not someone else’s. They produced almost no surplus and bought none.

 

[OnAJourney]

Yeah this isn’t a terrible idea, totally not like it won’t inflame racial tensions

 

[empacae]

I think this is great. Give Harris the biggest megaphone you can, give it to AOC too…AOC is AOK by me. Senator Spartacus, Warren, Clinton…all of them. Unless Oprah Winfrey runs nothing is stopping Trump now.

Let’s hope the DNC has more gems like these to come out. I’m getting a Shultz2020 shirt.

 

[JonNC]

I know you think the Great Society programs were ineffective at what they were intended to do, and I tend to agree. But there is no evidence that giving people money makes them poorer.

Giving them money tends to encourage people not to work. Simple human nature.
On the other hand, apparently you believe blacks have already received money, or reparations in the form of government subsidies.

Statistics are about aggregations, not individuals.

Accusations, however, are about individuals.

It is more than just slavery per se. It is also the discrimination the resulted from the attitude formed by nearly a century of slavery.

No argument. But the single most impactful event is the disintegration of the black family unit.

Please look up the definition of “racist” before using the word with such abandon.

Already have.

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Holding all whites as responsible for the actions of some is, in fact, racism. That isn’t use with abandon bit is use with precision.

(Just as an aside, and not germane to my argument, but it is interesting to note that while you refuse to accept that today’s whites are responsible for what 19th century whites did, you do accept and promote the idea that today’s Democrats are responsible for what 19th century Democrats did.)

I’m happy to see to understand the irony. Today’s Democrat is no more responsible than and other currently living American.

Statistically, you do.

If you are saying I have an advantage specifically because of my race, that is an example based on race, and therefore, racist. It is the same as saying blacks in Chicago are responsible for crime because they are black.

 

[JonNC]

Oh, I agree the program failed to lift up the poor. I just disagree that it caused the huge net worth discrepancy we see today.

What it caused was the disintegration of the black family which caused loss of the ability to increase net worth

 

[qui_est_ce]

You were right, that was tough. Thanks for sharing. It’s so so sad.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Giving them money tends to encourage people not to work. Simple human nature.

Not true. (Unless you give them millions.) Giving them just enough to get by allows them to just get by. People still have a desire to do more and be more. That too is human nature, and why most people who already have more than they need still continue to work hard.

Statistics are about aggregations, not individuals.

Accusations, however, are about individuals.

Reparations are not accusations.

It is more than just slavery per se. It is also the discrimination the resulted from the attitude formed by nearly a century of slavery.

No argument. But the single most impactful event is the disintegration of the black family unit.

…which happened because of…

1. Black families were separated by selling off children and parents separately ?, or
2. Blacks are inherently disrespectful of family ?

(and don’t give me any of that “The Great Society did it” because the Great Society did very little, and what it did do was just as applicable to poor whites as it was to poor blacks, so you can’t explain the differential from that.)

Please look up the definition of “racist” before using the word with such abandon.

Already have.

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Then you already know that recognizing that people of different races have undergone different experiences is not racism. Having undergone different experiences is not the same thing as saying they possess characteristics or abilities specific to their race so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior.

Statistically, you do.

If you are saying I have an advantage specifically because of my race, that is an example based on race, and therefore, racist. It is the same as saying blacks in Chicago are responsible for crime because they are black.

No, but it is the same as saying blacks in Chicago experience more crime because they are black. Although, now that I write that, it occurs to me that you won’t agree to that statement either. Anticipating that disagreement, let me ask, if it’s not because of their race, is it just a coincidence that the statistics say they are more likely to be victims of crime than whites?

 

[JonNC]

It simply is not “revisionist history” in any way as one can easily find if they bother to look it up. However, it is certainly not the only thing that changed the voting habits in the South from Democrat to Republican, but it certainly more paramount than any other single factor. Even LBJ admitted that when he signed the 1960’s Civil rights Acts in that this would very much hurt the Democratic Party in the South, and he was correct.

The real “revisionist history” are those that deny that this is what really happened, and all it takes is maybe 10 minutes of one’s time to check it our at a non-partisan source. Maybe give it a go.

The historical facts do not support your revision.
Fact: black voting patterns started changing during the 1930’s, and not because FDR was a tower of virtue on equality. He wasn’t. He wasn’t much better than Wilson. They changed for what they perceived as a better economic message.
Fact: Civil rights acts, starting in the 50’s, passed because of Republicans and often despite Democratic opposition.
Fact: racist southern Democrat leaders did not, by and large, become Republicans even into the 70’s. J. William Fulbright is an excellent example.
Fact: the so-called southern strategy has absolutely no racist policies or proposals. Just as gradually as blacks gravitated to the Democratic Party, southerner states slowly gravitated to the Republican Party.

I stopped reading left-leaning biased sources on the topic in school curricula and in the MSM.

 

[Victoria33]

Candace Owens in an interivew:

I’m a young woman with a deep faith in the black community. I believe we’ve exhausted the victim narrative. It’s taken us exactly nowhere for the last 60 years, and it’s time for us to put forth a different effort.

Dear Black America: Candace Owens Wants To Talk About Your Future

Focusing on women and celebrating what makes them so unique, Evie Magazine helps women seek truth and find beauty...the kind that really matters.

www.eviemagazine.com

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Fact: Civil rights acts, starting in the 50’s, passed because of Republicans and often despite Democratic opposition.

This general assertion deserves closer inspection. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats, but by how much? Well, in the House it was supported by 152 out of 248 Democrats (61%), and 138 out of 172 Republicans (80%). But when we break down that Democratic vote into North and South we find that Northern Democrats backed the Civil Rights Act by a margin even larger than that of the Republicans, 141 out of 145 (97%), but opposition came from the Southern Democrats who opposed the bill by 92 to 11. So almost all of the Democratic opposition (92 to 4) came from the South, which shows that Civil Rights support is not so much a Democrat vs Republican thing but a South vs North thing, even in 1964. It also important to note the important leadership voices in the passage of this act - President Johnson, who staked his own re-election prospects on this tough, divisive legislative battle; Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, who had been championing the issue of civil rights for a decade and a half; Sen. Mike Mansfield, who together with Humphrey convinced a reluctant Everett Dirksen to join in the support of the bill. Notable opponents of the Civil Rights Acts include Barry Goldwater, the Republican Presidential candidate for the election that year.

What you say is true, if by that you mean the bill would not have passed if there weren’t at least 60 Republicans to support it. But it would be wrong to infer that Republicans had to drag Democrats kicking and screaming into supporting it.

 

[Victoria33]

This general assertion deserves closer inspection. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats, but by how much? Well, in the House it was supported by 152 out of 248 Democrats (61%), and 138 out of 172 Republicans (80%). But when we break down that Democratic vote into North and South we find that Northern Democrats backed the Civil Rights Act by a margin even larger than that of the Republicans, 141 out of 145 (97%), but opposition came from the Southern Democrats who opposed the bill by 92 to 11. So almost all of the Democratic opposition (92 to 4) came from the South, which shows that Civil Rights support is not so much a Democrat vs Republican thing but a South vs North thing, even in 1964. It also important to note the important leadership voices in the passage of this act - President Johnson, who staked his own re-election prospects on this tough, divisive legislative battle; Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, who had been championing the issue of civil rights for a decade and a half; Sen. Mike Mansfield, who together with Humphrey convinced a reluctant Everett Dirksen to join in the support of the bill. Notable opponents of the Civil Rights Acts include Barry Goldwater, the Republican Presidential candidate for the election that year.

What you say is true, if by that you mean the bill would not have passed if there weren’t at least 60 Republicans to support it. But it would be wrong to infer that Republicans had to drag Democrats kicking and screaming into supporting it.

And by that same thinking, let’s not forget, in the 1950s, civil rights legislation was attempted and failed because of Democrats, I believe LBJ and maybe even JFK voted against such legislation.

 

[Gabika50]

And, the former slave holders are all dead…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And by that same thinking, let’s not forget, in the 1950s, civil rights legislation was attempted and failed because of Democrats, I believe LBJ and maybe even JFK voted against such legislation.

Maybe? Maybe? Is that how you form your views? With "maybe"s? I prefer facts. Here is JFK’s voting record in the senate on Civil Rights:

1960 – Motion to limit debate by invoking cloture on the Civil Rights filibuster (two-thirds majority required). Rejected 42-53 (D 30-33; R 12-20) March 10. Kennedy FOR.
1960 – Motion to table (kill) an amendment to civil rights bill to add Part III, empowering the Attorney General to seek injunction to protect any civil right. Tabling motion agreed to 55-38 (D 34-28; R 21-10) March 10. Kennedy AGAINST.
1960 – Motion to table (kill) an amendment to the bill to provide for court-appointed referees or Presidentially appointed enrollment officers to register voters after a court has found a pattern or practice of discrimination. Tabling motion agreed to 51-43 (D 27-35; R 24-8) March 24. Kennedy AGAINST.
1959 – Extend life of Civil Rights Commission for two years and appropriate $500,000 to it. Agreed to 7l-18 (D 43-17; R 28-1) Sept. 14. Kennedy FOR.
1957 – A point of order against a move to bypass the House-passed civil rights bill around the Senate Judiciary Committee. Rejected 39-45 (D 34-11; R 5-34) June 20. The rejection permitted the bill to go straight on the Senate calendar. Kennedy FOR.
1957 – Eliminate section of civil rights bill authorizing Attorney General to institute civil action for preventive relief in civil rights cases under the 14th Amendment. Agreed to 52-38 (D 34-13; R 18-25) July 24. Kennedy AGAINST.
1957 – Guarantee jury trials in all cases of criminal contempt and provide uniform methods of selecting federal court juries. Agreed to 51-42 (D 39-9; R 12-33) Aug. 2. Kennedy FOR.
1956 – Constitutional amendment to nominate Presidential candidates by national primary and elect President by direct popular vote. Rejected 13-69 (D 11-28; R 2-41) March 27. Kennedy AGAINST.
1952 – McCarran-Walter Immigration Act. Passage of bill over President’s veto. Passed 278-113 (D 107-90; R 170-23) June 26. Kennedy AGAINST.
1947 – Anti-poll tax. Passed 290-112 (D 73-98; R 216-14) July 21. Kennedy FOR.

 

[JonNC]

And by that same thinking, let’s not forget, in the 1950s, civil rights legislation was attempted and failed because of Democrats, I believe LBJ and maybe even JFK voted against such legislation.

Specifically, JFK voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act, while Nixon worked for its passage.

 

[JonNC]

And, the former slave holders are all dead…

Exactly…

 

[Peeps]

This is excellent.

One of the reasons that I believe African American young people have higher drop-out rates (at least, in our city–I’m sure this isn’t true in all cities/towns, and in all high schools) is that they have rejected the U.S. “system”.

I can’t say I blame them for distrusting the “system,” but I think that rejecting it because of its failures, including racism, will lead to a failure to succeed in the U.S.

The "do’s) of the “system” include: "get a good education, avoid crime of all kinds, avoid addictions that take your money and energy away from you, avoid a sexual relationship until marriage, avoid having children until marriage, begin working for pay as soon as you are able (even children can rake leaves, sweep a porch, help an elderly person do simple clean-ups, etc.), and use these jobs as a springboard to find higher-paying jobs and build up a “resume,” keep regular hours and develop healthy habits (get enough sleep), take care of your personal health, get some kind of job training past high school (college, trade school, apprenticeship, etc.) and choose a career that will earn a living wage from the very beginning.

The “don’ts” of the "system include "no crime, no addictions, no sex, no children (until marriage), no fantasizing about a “Great Come And Get-It Day” when everything will be free, no lottery, no “easy money”, no handouts, no begging, no rejection of capitalism (since that’s what we have in the U.S. like it or not), no reverse-racism, no idolization of pop stars or athletes who denigrate the U.S. and use foul language regularly and encourage criminal acts against “the system.”

This is a very simplistic description, but I think it’s key to success.

It’s not just African Americans who reject “the system.” We have large populations of what most of call “poor white trash” or “hillbillies” who do the same thing–live shiftless lives, have unhealthy habits, complain, sit around, harbor prejudice against everyone, but especially against 'Rich Fat Cats" or against “black people who get all kinds of handouts,” spend their min. wage paycheck on lotto tickets, which, if they win, they spend in less than a year and are more broke than ever, flunk out in school (when they actually make it to school–it’s hard for them to tear themselves away from their TV and video games), etc.

To succeed in the U.S., a person simply has to buy into the system and embrace it. That’s how so many immigrants succeed–they work that system and it works for them!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Victoria33:

And by that same thinking, let’s not forget, in the 1950s, civil rights legislation was attempted and failed because of Democrats, I believe LBJ and maybe even JFK voted against such legislation.

Specifically, JFK voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act, while Nixon worked for its passage.

Wrong. Kennedy voted FOR the 1957 Civil Right Act.

 

[Metis1]

I stopped reading left-leaning biased sources on the topic in school curricula and in the MSM.

I check out as many sources as I have the time with, especially if the topic is at all controversial. Six days a week I start out with Yahoo News that draws from a goodly divergence of sources.

Unfortunately, imo, all too many people only seek out sources that feed their “confirmation bias”. Therefore, your and my approach on this is almost entirely different.