Talk:Reparations for slavery in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Worldwide focus of article

I'm aware that reparations for slavery have been proposed in Australia. Does anyone know of countries other than the USA and Australia where they are are seriously proposed? I'm searching, but haven't found any yet. Bry9000 (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we lock this article?

People unclear on the concept of NPOV persist in using this article to push their own opinions. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a blog. Encyclopedia articles are meant to explain and describe concepts, not to defend or attack them. There are plenty of places to do that. Vcrs (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Start-class?

Despite the veracity of what the previous poster said, this article seems to me to be a balanced and fairly well-sourced look at the topic in its current state. Surely it qualifies for something more that start-class? How would I go about making this feeling more than just a comment on a talk page? --72.35.67.9 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed "reparateme.com" from external links

{{Deadlocked}} The site isn't just about slavary reparations, it is about all types of reparations. It is also a pretty open forum, more about opinions and name calling than facts.

The above comment was added by user "Silverfern nc." Please sign your posts by typing four tildes like this: ~~~~ Bry9000 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The website is about all reparations but there are several topics related to slavery reparations. The link should go to one of those.

Heart Blackwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.126.49 (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. ReparateMe.com should be included but only with links to relevant stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.231.244 (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It's a bloggish website that does not pass WP:EL, and should not be linked to from anywhere in Wikipedia. If anonymous or newly-registered users continue to spam it across articles, it's a good candidate for the WP site blacklist. --CliffC (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree, after looking at the site itself, ReparateMe.com looks pretty much like brain dead complaining. It looks mostly like a "Feel good" site where people can wallow in their sense of self-righteous martyrdom and write explanations for why governments should pay loads of money. Pstanton 04:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

From my watch list, it looks like we're starting a revert war with users going by their IP addresses. I'm going to suggest we use semi-protection to stop anonymous users from repeatedly re-adding repartme.com to this article. Pstanton 20:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

The Civil War destroyed much pre-war wealth and value.

Has the point been addressed that the Civil War destroyed a significant portion of the wealth and value that existed prior to the war; a pre-war value contributed to by several forms of wage slavery, as well as physical slavery? The value created to that point that ceased to exist did not accrue to the present, much less with interest. Moreover, various recessions and depressions since then removed much more of the pre-Civil War value. Recovery of that value in several steps to the current level of national wealth stems from the hard work of post-Civil War, and mainly post-1800's, generations.

The point that the Civil War was payment in material and lives by the generation at the time for slavery is raised, but is the fact that the total value claimed never made it past the war, much less to the present day, mentioned in the dialogue?

Gloryroad (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

outside US

does the Reparations for slavery discussion also exist outside the us (i don't mean people out of US talk about US, but about Reparations for slavery in outher countries, since slavery existed not only in US) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Post-feudal peasantry in Europe

One broad historical precedent that should be considered is the fate of the post-feudal peasantry in Europe. In a number of European countries the formerly serf peasants were enfranchised by being allowed to hold onto rural properties on which they lived, worked and where they were exploited for generations. No such compensation has been extended to former slaves in the USA, essentially kidnapped people, which in perspective gravely affects the current economic condition of this ethnic group. Orczar (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

David Horowitz's 2001 Article

In 2001, David Horowitz's article was published in the Free Republic, in which he set forth ten reasons why reparations was a bad a idea -- and racist too. The ten reasons follow:

One

There Is No Single Group Clearly Responsible For The Crime Of Slavery

Black Africans and Arabs were responsible for enslaving the ancestors of African-Americans. There were 3,000 black slave-owners in the ante-bellum United States. Are reparations to be paid by their descendants too?

Two

There Is No One Group That Benefited Exclusively From Its Fruits

The claim for reparations is premised on the false assumption that only whites have benefited from slavery. If slave labor created wealth for Americans, then obviously it has created wealth for black Americans as well, including the descendants of slaves. The GNP of black America is so large that it makes the African-American community the 10th most prosperous "nation" in the world. American blacks on average enjoy per capita incomes in the range of twenty to fifty times that of blacks living in any of the African nations from which they were kidnapped.

Three

Only A Tiny Minority Of White Americans Ever Owned Slaves, And Others Gave Their Lives To Free Them

Only a tiny minority of Americans ever owned slaves. This is true even for those who lived in the ante-bellum South where only one white in five was a slaveholder. Why should their descendants owe a debt? What about the descendants of the 350,000 Union soldiers who died to free the slaves? They gave their lives. What possible moral principle would ask them to pay (through their descendants) again?

Four

America Today Is A Multi-Ethnic Nation and Most Americans Have No Connection (Direct Or Indirect) To Slavery

The two great waves of American immigration occurred after 1880 and then after 1960. What rationale would require Vietnamese boat people, Russian refuseniks, Iranian refugees, and Armenian victims of the Turkish persecution, Jews, Mexicans Greeks, or Polish, Hungarian, Cambodian and Korean victims of Communism, to pay reparations to American blacks?

Five

The Historical Precedents Used To Justify The Reparations Claim Do Not Apply, And The Claim Itself Is Based On Race Not Injury

The historical precedents generally invoked to justify the reparations claim are payments to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, Japanese-Americans and African- American victims of racial experiments in Tuskegee, or racial outrages in Rosewood and Oklahoma City. But in each case, the recipients of reparations were the direct victims of the injustice or their immediate families. This would be the only case of reparations to people who were not immediately affected and whose sole qualification to receive reparations would be racial. As has already been pointed out, during the slavery era, many blacks were free men or slave-owners themselves, yet the reparations claimants make no distinction between the roles blacks actually played in the injustice itself. Randall Robinson's book on reparations, The Debt, which is the manifesto of the reparations movement is pointedly sub-titled "What America Owes To Blacks." If this is not racism, what is?

Six

The Reparations Argument Is Based On The Unfounded Claim That All African-American Descendants of Slaves Suffer From The Economic Consequences Of Slavery And Discrimination

No evidence-based attempt has been made to prove that living individuals have been adversely affected by a slave system that was ended over 150 years ago. But there is plenty of evidence the hardships that occurred were hardships that individuals could and did overcome. The black middle-class in America is a prosperous community that is now larger in absolute terms than the black underclass. Does its existence not suggest that economic adversity is the result of failures of individual character rather than the lingering after-effects of racial discrimination and a slave system that ceased to exist well over a century ago? West Indian blacks in America are also descended from slaves but their average incomes are equivalent to the average incomes of whites (and nearly 25% higher than the average incomes of American born blacks). How is it that slavery adversely affected one large group of descendants but not the other? How can government be expected to decide an issue that is so subjective - and yet so critical - to the case?

Seven

The Reparations Claim Is One More Attempt To Turn African-Americans Into Victims. It Sends A Damaging Message To The African-American Community.

The renewed sense of grievance -- which is what the claim for reparations will inevitably create -- is neither a constructive nor a helpful message for black leaders to be sending to their communities and to others. To focus the social passions of African-Americans on what some Americans may have done to their ancestors fifty or a hundred and fifty years ago is to burden them with a crippling sense of victim-hood. How are the millions of refugees from tyranny and genocide who are now living in America going to receive these claims, moreover, except as demands for special treatment, an extravagant new handout that is only necessary because some blacks can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others -- many less privileged than themselves?

Eight

Reparations To African Americans Have Already Been Paid

Since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts and the advent of the Great Society in 1965, trillions of dollars in transfer payments have been made to African-Americans in the form of welfare benefits and racial preferences (in contracts, job placements and educational admissions) - all under the rationale of redressing historic racial grievances. It is said that reparations are necessary to achieve a healing between African-Americans and other Americans. If trillion dollar restitutions and a wholesale rewriting of American law (in order to accommodate racial preferences) for African-Americans is not enough to achieve a "healing," what will?

Nine

What About The Debt Blacks Owe To America?

Slavery existed for thousands of years before the Atlantic slave trade was born, and in all societies. But in the thousand years of its existence, there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians - Englishmen and Americans -- created one. If not for the anti-slavery attitudes and military power of white Englishmen and Americans, the slave trade would not have been brought to an end. If not for the sacrifices of white soldiers and a white American president who gave his life to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks in America would still be slaves. If not for the dedication of Americans of all ethnicities and colors to a society based on the principle that all men are created equal, blacks in America would not enjoy the highest standard of living of blacks anywhere in the world, and indeed one of the highest standards of living of any people in the world. They would not enjoy the greatest freedoms and the most thoroughly protected individual rights anywhere. Where is the gratitude of black America and its leaders for those gifts?

Ten

The Reparations Claim Is A Separatist Idea That Sets African-Americans Against The Nation That Gave Them Freedom

Blacks were here before the Mayflower. Who is more American than the descendants of African slaves? For the African-American community to isolate itself even further from America is to embark on a course whose implications are troubling. Yet the African-American community has had a long-running flirtation with separatists, nationalists and the political left, who want African-Americans to be no part of America's social contract. African Americans should reject this temptation.

For all America's faults, African-Americans have an enormous stake in their country and its heritage. It is this heritage that is really under attack by the reparations movement. The reparations claim is one more assault on America, conducted by racial separatists and the political left. It is an attack not only on white Americans, but on all Americans -- especially African-Americans.

America's African-American citizens are the richest and most privileged black people alive -- a bounty that is a direct result of the heritage that is under assault. The American idea needs the support of its African-American citizens. But African-Americans also need the support of the American idea. For it is this idea that led to the principles and institutions that have set African-Americans - and all of us -- free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.4.47 (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The exact article that you have reproduced here has already been quoted and cited to in the Wikipedia article itself. Horowitz is quoted separately in another part of the article as well. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not general discussion about the topic itself. So your lengthy copy-and-paste doesn't seem to be very helpful or even new. Bry9000 (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Horowitz's weak arguments are thrashed to bits by academic Paul Anthony Dottin; in his essay called "The Hydra of Horowitzian History". Dottin refutes Horowitz on every point such as showing that American Atlantic slavery was uniquely brutal and racist, that the very few blacks in the South that owned slaves is a small side issue that doesn't compare at all to the institutionalized slavery by white slave holders, and every other point. This academic article is on the Cambridge academic website.--Historylover4 (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

References

appropriate Sections for the topic

While there is a balance in quantity to the ostensible two sides of the issue (there are far more than two), this article should focus much more on facts and less on exercising arguments around the topic.

Part of what makes this article so problematic - in need of expert opinion, much unverifiable content, lack of citations, and disputed neutrality - is that the sections devote much space to "arguments" for this and that.

An article based on fact, about a controversial subject, would better serve readers interested in an introduction, not debate, on the topic, if it focused on a much more limited scope of content:

1)Proposals for reparations: this section should include specific conferences, documents, legal actions.

2)Related issues: A BRIEF treatment of why the issue is complicated: accumulated wealth and inequality, precedents, immigration, the change of governments through time, changing legality through time, distributed responsibility.

3)Significant people and publications: this section would be an appropriate place to alert readers to the existence of David Horowitz's book, Vernellia Randall's work, etc, without promoting or critiquing the arguments made by those people in those publications.

Wikipedia readers interested in learning more can then follow external links to the domain of debate and argument to learn for themselves the details of "Arguments for reparations: accumulated wealth" and "Arguments against reparations: relocation of injustice." Otherwise, the article will keep expanding with argumentation, not information. For example, someone might "respond" to the section on African governments' responsibility for the slave trade with information about European provocation and intensification of that, but even if expressed in factual information, including that information in this article (as opposed to "African slave trade" article) is an argument, not information for a curious reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.182.30.11 (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

12.182.30.11 (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Lack of precedent

Civil Liberties Act of 1988 paid living internee's reparations. How many people alive are former slaves? How many slave holders are still alive? This country isn't based in a way that the sins of the father go down to the son. I don't even have a slave holder in my family tree so why in the hell am I going to pay for it anyway? Why am I going to pay someone who wasn't even a slave? Why? The precedent set by the civil liberties act of 1988 is one that says we won't do that junk any more and if we do we will try to make it right for the living people that we wronged. This is nothing more than a request for a bill of attainder and just in case you haven't read Article I, Section 9 of the constitution there just so happens to be a precedent that you can't pass a bill of attainder. The only corruption of blood I can see is the corruption of individuals asking others who did no wrong to pay them for something that never happened to them. If we allowed such mindless practices where do we stop? Slaves were wronged, Indians were wronged, Irish people were wronged, ect ect. There is a long list of peoples that were wronged but a short list of those individuals actually living.70.15.191.119 (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. Go put it on a blog. Is your point that the CLA of 1988 isn't a precedent? Then the article just needs a source to say "this law is a precedent for reparations." Click: found a link from the American Bar Association. Done.131.96.91.127 (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Selective Breeding of Slaves

This is extremely dubious and amounts to urban myth. Are there any sources for this besides Jimmy the Greek? True there do exist slave ads of women for breeding stock, but this was common practice to encourage women to have children as their offspring were worth money. There is a small reference to selective breeding in Frederick Douglass' biography. Other than that there are no sources that this practice was widespread or even existed all. This alleged practice of selectively breeding slaves was perpetuated in the 70's in Blaxploitation movies such as Mandingo and Drum.--Wlmg (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

DNA Testing for Diasporans

I am creating this talk because I have concerns for Diasporan Afrikans being charged astronomical fees for testing for something that is ENTITLED to us. Once again, the western world has found come up with fEE another way to exploit the peculiar institution of slavery. Yes, I would love to find out my ancestral heritage, and yes had my ancestors not been chattled to the Amerikas! The right to FREE DNA TESTING should be part of ALL REPARATIONS PLATFORMS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinue X (talk • contribs) 18:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Just would like to comment, more out of white rage stemming from your self-entitled beliefs than anything else; you are neither legally nor morally entitled to free DNA testing, and the question of whether you're entitled to anything for the suffering of people genetically related to you is far from resolved even assuming that they were, in fact, slaves. DNA testing costs money, and if you want it done, you're going to have to pay for the time and materials that it takes. Even assuming that you did, there is no 'slave' gene. You cannot discover by a simple DNA test anything but the genes you have inherited, which may be useful to identify your heritage, but by no means tells you the story of their lives. The only reparation I have for you is my bile. 192.76.7.207 (talk)

The U.S. Constitution

This article holds that,

"Various estimates have been given if such payments were to be made. Harper's Magazine has created an estimate that the total of reparations due is over 100 trillion dollars, based on 222,505,049 hours of forced labor between 1619 and 1865, with a compounded interest of 6%.[8] Should all or part of this amount be paid to the descendants of slaves in the United States, the current U.S. government would only pay a fraction of that cost, over 40 trillion dollars, since it has been in existence only since 1789."

This seems like a logical idea if one believes in reparations, but there is tension in it when one looks at Article 6 of the United States Constitution:

"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."

The Articles of the Confederation were ratified in 1781, eight years before the Constitution. If my math is correct---word of warning, it usually isn't---that would mean the United States actually owes $31,495,914,240 more in reparations.

Should this be on the article? I don't know; but it's kind of an interesting idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.142.179 (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV removed

I've removed the NPOV tag on the article, please use {{POV-section}} for sections and clarify the issue(s) here. - RoyBoy 18:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ex-Colonial Governments

The author of this section appears to be oblivious toward the notion of private ownership; implying that Europe is responsible for the entirety of compensation wilfully overlooks the private trade of slaves within the US itself, of slaves and their descendants, which persisted past the abolition of the slave trade. Henners91 (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

+1 192.76.7.207 (talk)

Reparations already paid

Whenever the topics of affirmative action, welfare, aid to Africa, or crime are brought up, someone usually makes the "we're guilty for slavery so we have to do it" argument. Even if reparations are justified, what's to say that the government hasn't already paid it through those things? John Kaine (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In any case, if everyone guilty of slavery should compensate for damages, even after the last survivors have passed away, then we should add a huge claim towards Italy (Roman empire depended on slaves much more than 1600-1900 Europe ever did), Algeria and Turkey (as Ottoman and Moorish empires did capture white slaves) to the books. Arnoutf (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

California Slavery-Era Disclosure Law

See http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0100-consumers/0300-public-programs/0200-slavery-era-insur/slavery-era-report.cfm -- add as ref? -- Jo3sampl (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream discussion of reparations

See: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/ (Ta-Nehisi Coates)

Also see: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/the-impossibility-of-reparations/372041/ (David Frum)

And: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/the-radical-practicality-of-reparations/372114/ (rebuttal of "impossibility" piece; Coates)

-- Jo3sampl (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

New section

I have added a new section "Further reading", tried to be inclusive covering both sides of the argument. Best to all, --Nabak (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-African reparations?

This article talks almost exclusively about african reparations and nothing else. Isn't there slavery reparations for other ethnic or racial groups? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.127.207.170 (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere that land previously owned by white planters was at first, after the Civil War, given to blacks but was later taken away & returned to the "former" slave masters. That's a sort of "reparation" but to rich (or formerly rich) slave masters, isn't it? And I think it should be added to this article if it's true, & if anyone can find out if it's true. Sundiii (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Finally someone has addressed the issue of reverse racism. My family was poor immigrants of German and Irish descent. The Irish have been enslaved for much longer than nearly any other culture, first in England and then here in the U.S. While the North did not own many black slaves, they benefited from labor provided by the Irish. In many cases, the Irish were actually treated much more poorly than the slaves. They weren't even considered to be of the white race, despite many assumptions that all whites owned slaves. Instead of seeking reparations from the British or those in the U.S. that our descendants were mistreated by, we have done what many in this country have done and pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps. If every mistreated immigrant class in America tried to sue for reparations, we'd be broke.

Aren't slaves the ones who don't get paid AND are owned by somebody? I hardly think the Irish were slaves either in England or the USA. Tough luck yeah, but not slaves. The Saxons on the other hand were forced into slavery and cultural genocide by the Normans in 1066, where the majority of the natives became physical property. Probably there was slave class even before the Normans arrived. It wasn't until cash-based economies appeared hundreds of years later, that this problem was overcome. It resulted in a large underclass treated much the same as irish in any case. Way I reckon, the landed class in England owe me about 500-2000 years of reparations. CJ DUB (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, the word slave came from "Slav," an ethnic group that was treated similarly before african slaves became popular. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Gimme my reparations cheque CJ DUB (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

49 acres and a mule from "Sherman's Special Field Orders, No. 15". This was a military action Sundiii done with military power during a war. The war ends that power goes away. 198.45.184.25 (talk) 10:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC) There were also many Native Americans enslaved, especially after the Pequot War in the 1600s. 2601:601:8A00:DA66:484C:822A:ED8:EFC1 (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Opening paragraph is non-NPOV

I consider this line: "...in consideration of the labor provided for free over several centuries, without which the United States would likely have never attained its wealth and global power," to be non-neutral, a personal opinion and a unsubstantiated claim. While African slavery in the 1700's and 1800's did have a huge impact on the agricultural community in the south, as well as strong political ramifications, during the same time period - I consider it quiet a stretch to claim that it's "likely" that without slaves the US wouldn't be the global super power it is today.

The USA's current dominant status in global politics and economics is derived directly from the events leading up to, and the outcomes, of WWII. I see no correlation between the industrial manufacturing and production capabilities which originally brought the US power during the 1940's to slaves who worked in the cotton fields over 100 years prior to the attaining of wealth and power in these modern times.

If someone wants to try and justify this, fire away.

Hyperion395 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Slaves also weren't as productive as the factories of the North, so I don't see that as true either. Just personal bias. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is non-NPOV == "This compensation has been proposed in a variety of forms, from individual monetary payments to land-based compensation schemes related to independence." The word shcemes discredits the validity and character of those seeking land-based reparations. This propaganda is part of the continued oppression of African-Americans.198.205.17.200 (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Other Historical Considerations

While our modern veiws can misplace context in history, we understand the rejection of slavery today. Historically, this was also true. Many of our ancestor felt the same rejection. There is no intention to diminish the discussion of slavery, but instead to state that there are historical contexts that are missing in the discussion.

From a genealogical standpoint, a signifcant portion of our current population is descended from immigrants from a post slavery era. During the potato famine in the mid to late 1800's a large immigrant population from Ireland came to the U.S. The Irish were looked upon as second class citizens. Some were indentured servants, most were poor and were sent here by family members that were only able to afford to send one family member at a time. The Irish were persecuted in parts of the country in the late 1800's. These immigrants could not afford slaves and due to thier own treatment were not supporters of slavery.

The same is true of the large German (and Eastern European) populatons that immigrated to avoid polictial persecution during that same time period. The descendants of these populations are still evident throughout the Midwest. They generally believed in self-reliance and reaping the fruits of thier own labor...and not from slave labor.

The Chinese that immigrated would have a similar story from a historical and genealogical standpoint.

This is not to compare plights of any group nor to infer that any one group is or was perfect or rightous, nor to infer or diminish the plight of the African Americans that were brought here by force. The point of the discussion, about the missing historical and genealogical context, is to suggest a discussion of reparations must recognize that the make-up of our current society is heavily influenced by our ancestors that were not participants or supporters of slavery. Many of our ancestors did not immigrate until after the civil war. Some of these immigrants were part of the Underground Railroad.

From a historical and genealogical standpoint, it is difficult to argue that these descendants would be responsible for any reparations. To make the issue of payment more complicated, as the number of generations increase (post slavery), and as our society has become more mobile and trasient, the inter-marraige between genealogical/ancestral groups and between races makes identifying the payees and payors much more difficult.

It would be helpful to see an expanded discussion of the metrics of the slave populaton, slave descendants and the immigrant populations and their descendants over time. Even thought these metrics cannot change history, they can help us all understand, that regardless of the plight of our ancestors, that today we are much more alike than different from almost every perspective....including the plight of our ancestors and their views about slavery during thier times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.92.204 (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Reparations have been by America to Japanese and Jewish people.198.205.17.200 (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems balanced to me

I just wanted to say that this article in its present states seems very balanced and informative. --Darth Borehd (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the article does a fair (enough) job highlighting the debate and the arguments on each side.
I think the key questions being debated are:
Should reparations be paid for institutionalized slavery?
To whom? (Descendants of slaves?)
By whom? (US Governemnt, other governments, businesses, tax-payers?)
How (money, land, tax breaks, education, etc) and how much?

The arguments for answer the first question "Yes" and treat the other 3 questions as details to be worked out. The arguments against take one of the other 3 questions as central, untractable and derive "No" for the first question. Some of the arguments against aren't properly arguments against the idea of reparations but against an assumed solution, e.g., an argument against the US Government paying for reparations. (Although Horowitz's point 8 does address the first question).

The section that reparations could lead to increased racism is extremely thin--surely there's stronger research on the topic than a Libertarian Party press release? Otherwise this section should be removed. 146.184.0.119 (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just found and edited out a couple of personal opinions. The article is mostly fine, but a few sentences appear to have been edited in a personally invested tone. I've changed some of the wording to make the tone of the article more neutral.Pstanton 00:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

I think the article needs substantial work, especially in the 'Arguments for' section considering that much of the debate has now shifted from slavery to the general injustices visited upon African-Americans; slavery is one part of it, but Jim Crow, Segregation, COINTELPRO, Nixon's War on Drugs, etc. are all a more recent part of it, and other than a few lines in the first part of the article, there really isn't a mention of these things (much less a comprehensive look at them). Kyle Tatum (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

New Section: Examples of Slavery Related Reparations in the US

I added this section with a couple examples to start.

There are certainly more, and will be more.

Any suggestions for how to improve this section other than adding entries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaiku (talk • contribs) 22:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Improved Opening - citations and definition/forms of reparations

I improved citations and information in the opening.

Would love for folks to review it. I haven't written many opening, but it is now more accurate, better cited and less redundant.

I'm not sure whether that part about Caribbean nations and the like really fits in this article (which focuses on the US). Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaiku (talk • contribs) 22:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

"Arguments against reparations" section is a mess of WP:SYNTH.

Most of the arguments here aren't cited to a specific source making the argument; at best, they are synthesis / WP:OR, with an editor adding their own argument and using cites to try and buttress it. We need to cite arguments directly to people making them - sources that don't mention reparations have to be removed. And some things there, of course, aren't even cited at all. --Aquillion (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I cleaned it up. The first of the two paragraphs had a horrible and offtopic citation and based on the citation needed tag's article suggestion, I just deleted it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed#When_not_to_use_this_tag

The second was rediculous systhensis with another unrelated citation.

The third is a solid citations, makes good sense in this section and was retained.

If whoever wrote that content (or anyone) has reasonable sources that remove the need for unreasonable synthesis, please add them and restore the content. Supaiku (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Additional arguments and opinions

Should the below section simply be removed from this section? I'm having a hard time finding sources that state clearly the claims of 'fact' made. For example, I can find sources stating that few black Americans are of 100% sub-saharan decent, but nothing proving that is due to rape. On it's own, the fact seems trivial, because my understanding is that few people of any decent are 100%.

In addition, I can't seem to find any credible sources making these arguments, even if we assume the facts to be true. I'm thinking it was simply the editors opinion/speculation at this point. Ghettob170 (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Another argument against reparations is that few black Americans are of "pure" African blood due mostly to the rape of enslaved women[citation needed], but also to mixed-race marriages between blacks and other ethnicities. For example, Barack Obama, considered the first African-American president of the United States, is the product of a marriage between his white mother and black father. In addition, relationships, rarely consensual, between (usually female) slaves and their white masters were common during the 1700s and 1800s[citation needed], and therefore any offspring produced by these relationships would have inherited the slave status of their mother.

I removed the uncited (see suggestions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed#When_not_to_use_this_tag ) and added a citation for the mitch mconnel statement. Supaiku (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

How to handle the intermingling of reparations for Slavery vs reparations for post-slavery systemic injustice

Hey there everyone,

I've noticed that black reparation requests which are not all directly related to slavery, but also to more modern systemic oppression, and the two go hand in hand.

I'm curious about thoughts on how to navigate that in this article.

It could make sense to make a new article on that topic, but then they may later need to be merged, or a seperate article for both, or to simply shift the focus of this article so they can be included.

What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks! Supaiku (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Supaiku, I think that reparations for systemic oppression and current discrimination is very important to include, and I think it could be included in the scope of this article in its own section. Perhaps the title of the article should be shifted to "Reparations for Blacks in the United States" in that case, but I personally believe they should be kept together under the umbrella of reparations. SBrady16 (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this section notable/important? (See below)

The Rev. M.J. Divine, better known as Father Divine, was one of the earliest leaders to argue clearly for "retroactive compensation", and the message was spread via International Peace Mission publications. On July 28, 1951, Father Divine issued a "peace stamp" bearing the text: "Peace! All nations and peoples who have suppressed and oppressed the under-privileged, they will be obliged to pay the African slaves and their descendants for all uncompensated servitude and for all unjust compensation, whereby they have been unjustly deprived of compensation on the account of previous condition of servitude and the present condition of servitude. This is to be accomplished in the defense of all other under-privileged subjects and must be paid retroactive up-to-date". SBrady16 (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

New edits

I edited and added to the lead, In the 2020 presidential election, accumulated wealth, health care, additional arguments and opinions, and federal government. I also added these sections: Black Lives Matter, Current Discrimination, Technical Complications, and Reparations and Covid-19. Also added stronger sources like books and peer-reviewed journals. SBrady16 (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Inflammatory language

However, it is highly evident that all of these opinions are influenced by racism. After all, black people deserve reparations from the white race, as they didn't land on plymouth rock, plymouth rock landed on them. Black men in particular should also be allowed to sleep with whatever white woman they want to make up for this. White people are evil and have no reason to exist.

Just pointing out the potentially inflammatory nature of this part of the article. Whoever added this clearly wishes to provoke arguments to obscure the need for a balanced and harmonious article. I accept that the issue is a sensitive one and, whilst a time machine would be lovely for this scenario, hope for a peaceful resolution to the ripples that have spread far and wide.

SangDrac (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Biased Against section

The Against Section needs to be rewritten. If you are going to write an against section you need to be genuine. Using scare quotes, sarcasm, strawman, and undermining your position isn't a genuine against section. You are supposed to be arguing against, not for. RvbGrif (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Source issues

If you have a problem with sourcing it doesn’t justify deletion.... citation needed is more appropriate. If the information is false make your case on the talk page. Robjwev (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The following text is not supported by its source. I have removed it for this, but it keeps being re-added.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic show the clear legacy of slavery and racism in the United States. Effectively, the black family in America has been left without a safety net, meaning that when crisis strikes—such as a pandemic— “the fall is precipitous”.

References

The source has the phrase "the fall is precipitous", but makes no link to covid. It should be removed. (Hohum ^@) 19:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing might not be correct but the information is factual a quick search and sourcing correction could have resolved the problem....here is an example

https://sph.umich.edu/news/2020posts/covid-19-and-the-disproportionate-impact-on-black-americans.html Robjwev (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I notice you haven't added this source... and upon reading it it doesn't support what is said anyway - specifically: "The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic show the clear legacy of slavery and racism in the United States."

The "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" per WP:BURDEN (Hohum ^@) 18:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The time it took you to delete, you could have added the changes. I usually wait to change anything allowing others to give their input I meet the burden rule. You have claimed the information is not correct but haven't offer anything to back up your accusations. Provide evidence or I will continue to revert. Robjwev (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Replacement sourcing suggestion ---https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-black-plague Robjwev (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I have offered evidence. The sources DID NOT support what is being said. The New Yorker article does. It is not up to me to prove things that YOU are trying to keep in the article. (Hohum ^@) 00:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

IDK about the article Im trying resolve this without deleting the article without discussion. That’s what I use to do until I realized that it’s easier to resolve any issues using the talk page. I will leave the changes to the sourcing on the talk page for a while before making the change to allow further discussion. Robjwev (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You put a lot of work into this editorial. That's what it is without primary and quality secondary sources. Each of your most inflammatory editorial statements cites an internet news article that further cites questionable secondary sources. This method though rigorous, is not scholarly. It is well within the realm of propaganda. There SHOULD be a wiki entry for "Reparations for Slavery," but this is NOT it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.13.50.1 (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This issue is an issue where there will never be consciences. It will never be perfect but deleting content simply because you disagree should not become a standard. This might not be a perfect wiki page on this topic but it's a working document and it's all we have. Robjwev (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies aren't reparations

Sure they're good, they're a step in the right direction, but they are not the topic of the article and don't belong here. deisenbe (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree apologies are not reparations, but this section is part of the history and should remain. Robjwev (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Making major changes before discussion

Deleting material that might have issues is not ethical behavior of an editor ( Yes I’m guilty of this too but I know better now) if you have a problem with something it should be a discussion first. Direct editing should only take place to fix formatting, grammar, spelling, sabotage. Everything else should be discussed here first. Robjwev (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

We could combine BLM and ADOS along with other groups as activists groups fighting for reparations that would be an acceptable compromise. Robjwev (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia encourages bold editing and it's often suggested we follow a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I edited boldly (and gave my reasoning) and you reverted and now we're discussing. The major problem is that you reverted without any justification. You have not explained what was wrong with the edit. Do any of the sources mention ADOS? Do you believe the section is better off without common-sense wikilinks? Is the statue discussion on-topic, and does the source there justify the inclusion of "and reignited the push for reparations"? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Bold editing means improvements not censorship that conforms to your interpretation of what’s significanct BLM was not edited out and paragraph is redundant to the ADOS paragraph. Instead of erasure we should combine all activist movements into a single paragraph. You have several other groups that are more active than BLM in the reparations area. NAARC, ADOS, N’cobra, ibw21. All of these sole purpose is working on reparations. Robjwev (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

BLM is not mentioned at all in that section, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. It looks like you're discussing a completely different section of the article. Feel free to make sourced changes as you see fit. In the meantime, do you have any actual objections to my edit? The article currently includes information that is unverified and you have not justified reverting my removal (besides baseless accusations of censorship). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It needs to be reworked and sourcing needs to be updated. I could do the rewrite and post it here for review? Robjwev (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

If you'd like; I don't mind your just editing it in and discussion can happen if anyone objects to the changes. In the meantime, can I restore my edit? Existing sourcing is insufficient for the current contents. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You’re welcome to restore your previous edit. I didn’t think it’s necessary, but I will not undo your change pending my addition. Robjwev (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

If reparations happened would native americans be able to sue to get their land back?

If reparations were paid to black americans would native americans be able to sue in USA federal court to get all of the USA land back?

Whole different discussion Native Americans have treaties with the United States Government. Robjwev (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Long before Europeans ever came to North America, Native Americans stole land from other Native Americans, and Native Americans enslaved other Native Americans. So if Native Americans were involved in reparations, they would be both the payer and the recipient. Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)