plus I have a little native american in me
Trauma, this is far worse than any form of slavery. Let him out, please
Reparations & Protest
by Larry 64 Replies latest jw friends
-
funkyderek
-
DakotaRed
Lisa, I was not saying the Japanese suffered worse than the Africans. Anyone with half a brain can see the African slaves suffered much worse. I was merely responding to your question of where was the outcry against the reparations for them.
However, what would reparations serve to reimburse them today? I know you have said you are against it yourself, but I see a distinct difference between the two. There are survivors of the Japanese internment still alive. There are no former slaves still alive, only descendants.
Slavery was brought to this continent by Europeans long before America was even a country. Yet, it is only the Americans who are being sought out for reparations. South Africa is the latest nation I can think of that openly practiced discrimination legally. Are they being asked to repay one group?
Sadly, America has become a nation of loafers and sensationalists. NO, it is not restricted to one group or race, but each has their agenda and many buy into it. We all want something for nothing. Sorry, but we are not entitled to anything unless we work for it. Each has their opportunists seeking to ride the backs of their followers by making public outcries. Is their goal betterment of the group, or simply lining their own pockets and bettering their own socio-economic standard and increasing their personal power?
As I keep saying, as long as we segregate ourselves into differing groups, we are creating our own problems. There will always be a group that feels they are better then the other. And there will always be a group that feels they are singled out. When we can get past labeling ourselves based on our differences and start coming together based on our similarities, then I feel we have made giant strides in actually curing an ongoing ill of society.
Nearly every body can come up with a reason they feel they are entitled to reparations, though. But, are they really? As Americans, too many of us have listened to the Socialist view of "entitlements." But who pays? We pay ourselves while demanding more free money. It is nothing more than a vicous circle.
America is more integrated today than it has ever been, but it still has a long way to go. However, I see that it will never achieve total colorblindness until we stop separating ourselves into our racial and ethnic groups. None need give up their ancestral culture. America has been unique in combining the best of all cultures into an American culture. Now, we seek to break that apart and celebrate individual cultures and creating yet another segregation of "my ancestral culture is better than yours." We end up with has become known as the hyphenated American. Yet, we put our differences first and create our own ethnic group.
I grew up poor southern white trash in an abusive household. Instead of going off to college in my youth, I was sent off to Vietnam. So, who owes me? No one. I pulled myself out of that quagmire with my own two hands. Being white gave me no advantage. In fact, at times, it was a detriment. Affirmative action kept me from a couple real good jobs.
Like I said earlier on, this "us versus them" needs to stop. Expecting anything handed to us needs to stop. No one should be granted or denied a chance based solely on race or ethnicity. The "Great Melting Pot" of yesterday was actually a good thing, I believe. But, it needs to include all who are here and not leave any group out, as it did.
Lew W
-
Peckerwood
LDH,
Now you are making me laugh. I guess I do know more than you on this subject. Civil or civic or citizen's rights have been around since the dawn of the republican form of gov't. What you are referring to is the Civil Rights Act of 1964(&1991) This Act furthered the rights granted by the 14th amendment, and guaranteed ALL citizens the right to equal opportunities regardless of race, etc. Now affirmative action benefits only those who have suffered from discrimination in the past. Incidentally, it does not require anyone to prove that they had actually been individually discriminated against. Affirmative action is inherently unconstitutional due to violations of the equal protection clause of the same 14th amendment.
The first time the words "affirmative action" were uttered in the United States, was by John F. Kennedy in 1961. In Executive Order 10952, an order that created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Kennedy ordered public employers to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during their employment, without regard to race, creed, color or national origin." Thus, the original meaning of "affirmative action" was that the federal government should take an "affirmative," or active, role to end racial discrimination.
Kennedy never mentioned racial preferences, goals, timetables, or any other jargon implicit in current use of "affirmative action." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 fulfilled his initial goal of "affirmative action." This piece of legislation barred racial discrimination in public and private employment, private business practices, and federal government programs.
It was, however, the Philadelphia Plan, created in 1970 during President Nixons administration, that defined contemporary affirmative action: the one that involves racial preferences, goals, and timetables. As a response for the discrimination blacks received from federal construction employers in Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Plan enacted federal mandated set-aside programs and racial preferences to counteract past discrimination against minorities and women. So, I guess two wrongs do make a right.
I have a hard time understanding why the federal government would enact another law instead of enforcing an existing one, especially when the Philadelphia Plan contradicts the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This has been one of the problems Ive had with the current state of affirmative action. I truly believe that considering the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there is no use for affirmative action, and affirmative action is, in fact, a violation of that Act.
The Amistad incident does not apply to US laws on the subject of slavery. The Amistad Africans had been illegally enslaved by a Portuguese slave trader, who bought them from their fellow Africans and sold them to a plantation in Havana (then a Spanish colony) Spain's own laws against international slave trading were simply upheld. This was never viewed as legal precedent against slavery in the US which continued to exist, under rule of law, for several decades.
You have not answered my previous questions. Can I then assume you do not dispute my claims?
-
Peckerwood
DakotaRed,
Thank you for the kind welcome. Apologies for not responding to you sooner.
-
jozb5
Larry,
You said:
"We are a people without a homeland to call our own. We have to assimilate to survive in the US at the expense of losing our ancestral heritage."
I'm sorry but I don't personally agree with that. Regardless of where my ancestors came from or how they got here, this (The United States of America) is my homeland.
I do have african ancestry but it is not my sole ancestry and I cannot and will not call myself a true African without a homeland because I'm not. I have full-blooded African friends who have children here and I consider their children to be African-American, but I and my family are Black and we are full-blooded Americans.
Josie